Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from Yoti Ltd concerning an article published by Crikey on 14 June 2024, headed “I tricked a selfie AI age-verification tool into letting a child ‘buy’ a knife" (Online).   The article’s subheading said that “Governments are looking at using AI to estimate people’s age using a selfie. I fooled it using a stock image and an old aging filter.” The article reported that “A tool used to estimate age using facial analysis that is being promoted as a way to stop underage children from accessing social media or online pornography can be fooled using an aging filter on a popular photo-editing app.”   The article went on to report that “One of Yoti’s methods for age estimation, which Opposition Leader Peter Dutton spruiked just yesterday — is ‘facial analysis’, which can calculate someone’s age using a selfie.” It reported that “Critics argue that age estimation through facial scans is flawed and vulnerable to being tricked. Yoti offers some measures to stop people from fooling its system, but it doesn’t change the underlying technology’s reliance on easily falsifiable information.” The article went on to say, “I know because I tricked Yoti’s age estimation into letting me ‘buy’ a fixed-blade knife using the photograph of a 10-year-old that I had put through an aging filter on a photo-editing application.”   The complainant said that the article is entirely misrepresentative noting in particular the headline and the accompanying social media posts. The complainant said it had conversed with the publication and explained in detail how the “demo” the publication had used for the basis of the article, was a limited demo version of the age assurance technology and how it did not include Yoti's liveness technology which would detect a manipulated image. The complainant said it explained how actual customers would always use liveness detection in a working model to ensure that manipulated images could not fool the system.   The complainant said that the demo was designed to allow people to explore the technology in full to see what you could and could not do with this version. The complainant said that despite its explanation, the publication proceeded to report that it had “tricked the technology” when it had not and used an inflammatory and misleading headline. The complainant said the article damages Yoti's reputation which is highly regarded in the age assurance sector and endorsed by numerous government and industry bodies.   In response, the publication said the article made clear from the beginning that the article was about the underlying technology utilised in Yoti’s demo. It said that it updated the article and included the word “demo” in the headline and the article and added a clarification out of an abundance of caution after it was contacted by Yoti.   The publication said that while Yoti disputes that the underlying technology used in the demonstration was “tricked” or “fooled”, it is obvious that this article demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the age verification technology that allows it to be tricked or fooled. Its system relies on visual cues that are able to be manipulated irrespective of someone’s age. That is why Yoti has separate liveliness detection technologies that it sells. The technology has a vulnerability which the publication demonstrated, even if it’s one that can be mitigated.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).   The Council accepts that the publication has accurately reported how it used a used an image of a child to buy a knife when it used an online demo tool provided by Yoti on its website. The Council also accepts that age verification technology may be manipulated. However, on the information before it, the Council notes that the online demo used by the publication for the premise of the article, was limited in its purpose and designed only to demonstrate to potential purchasers, how age verification technology works in an online environment. The Council accepts that the demo was not designed to detect, as in this instance, the manipulation of an image.   The Council also notes that it was clearly stated on Yoti’s website, that its ‘Anti spoofing software’ which is designed to detect the manipulation of an image, was not enabled on the demo. In this context, the Council considers it is misleading to state that technology used by Yoti to estimate age using facial analysis was “tricked” or “fooled”. The Council also considers that in context of an article that questions the fallibility of facial analysis technology, the article unfairly suggests that the technology used by Yoti is flawed.   Accordingly, the Council concludes General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in these respects.   As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the article is significantly misleading. While the Council recognises the remedial steps taken by the publication, the Council does not consider that this constituted adequate remedial action for the implication that the complainant’s technology can be “tricked” or “fooled”. The Council notes that even with the inclusion of the word “demo” in the headline and article and the additional clarification in the article, the article’s premise that the technology used by Yoti can be fooled remains misleading and unfair.   The Council again notes that the demo used in support of the article’s premise that age estimation software is flawed, was designed for a different purpose. The Council notes that on the information before it, the publication has not offered the complainant with an opportunity for a subsequent reply. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:   1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion. 2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in the Herald Sun on 21 May 2024 captioned “AUSTRALIA’S FRONT DOOR”.   The cartoon depicts Prime Minister Anthony Albanese winding up a drawbridge with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton striding bare chested towards him saying “STEP ASIDE ALBO”. In the background are people with predominantly brown skin, with some wearing head coverings such as hijabs, and carrying suitcases who are clinging to, clambering over, and marching down the drawbridge that is being wound up. In the foreground there are a number of people also wearing head coverings and carrying suitcases, who are all proceeding past Mr Albanese.   In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which requires publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).   The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon suggests that the immigrants are mostly Muslims from the Middle East and Africa and does not portray the reality of immigration into Australia which is led by people from India, China and the Philippines. The complaint noted that in this context, the cartoon’s portrayal of the immigrants’ ethnicity is offensive, and the way they are drawn is a racial stereotype of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa, which is prejudicial. The complaint also expressed concern that the cartoon depicted Dutton as a superhero capable of winding up the drawbridge, and by implication protecting Australia from such immigrants.   In response, the publication said the cartoon should be considered in context of the political debate concerning Australia’s dramatic 73% increase in immigration and whether Australia could sustain such levels. The publication said the cartoon seeks to illustrate the increase in immigration by drawing a crowd of entrants coming in Australia's front door, which is depicted metaphorically as a drawbridge. It said the cartoon is not about who is coming in, but more about the number of immigrants entering, and it depicted a wide range of ethnic groups which are visible in Australian society from India, Africa, Asia and elsewhere. It said the cartoon’s depiction of the immigrants is not critical or racist but simply depicts the diversity of the immigrant intake.  The publication said Mr Albanese’s depiction in the cartoon sees him attempting to stem the flow of intake with the visual metaphor of him labouring hard on raising the drawbridge, while Mr Dutton is depicted in a comedic fashion as a ‘hairy chested’ muscle man. It noted that the term ‘hairy chested’ is used in politics when a politician is voicing strongly worded opinions or is ‘gung-ho’ on an issue.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice. Nonetheless, the Council also recognises that the significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression must be weighed against the equally significant public interest in not causing or contributing to offence or prejudice.   The Council accepts that the intention of the cartoon was to comment on the political debate surrounding the immigration numbers and not on who or where the immigrants were arriving from. The Council also accepts that it was not the cartoonist’s intention to cause offence or prejudice. However, the Council considers that the depiction of the immigrants, which it notes is not reflective of the ethnic and geographical composition of migrant arrivals into Australia, together with the raising of the drawbridge, implies that such immigrants are undesirable. The Council considers that in the context of a national political debate concerning the potential negative effects of the significant immigration increase on Australian society, the depiction of such people as mostly brown skinned, with prominent facial features and attire that reflects a stereotypical portrayal of people from the Middle East and Africa, including Muslims, is offensive and prejudicial.   While the Council recognises the public interest in commenting on the political debate around immigration, the Council does not consider it was sufficient to justify the substantial offence and prejudice caused or contributed to in choosing to depict the immigrants in the manner in which it did. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence and prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   “Publications must take reasonable steps to:

6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.”

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Advertiser headed “200M FOR TERRORISTS” / “Wong under fire for latest grant to Hamas-infiltrated UN group”, 30 January 2024 in print.   The article reported on the Australian Federal Government’s funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. It reported that, “Australia has handed $200m to a UN aid agency that sacked workers for taking part in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel as Penny Wong is facing questions for overlooking concerns about the group”.  The article reported that the “federal government has been accused of ignoring warnings about the involvement of UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) workers in the murderous assault …”. The article went on to report “A pause has now been placed on the funds, which had not yet been released.”   In response to the complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which requires publications to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3), and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, without sufficient public interest (General Principle 6).   The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the article’s headline was an unfair and prejudicial description of a UN aid agency as it suggested that it was a terrorist organisation. The complaint noted that the UN aid agency has not been designated as a terrorist organisation by the Australian Government or any other nation state.   In response, the publication said that the headline needed to be read in conjunction with the article. The publication pointed to the first paragraph of the front-page article, which stated “Australia has handed $200m to a UN aid agency that sacked workers for taking part in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel as Penny Wong is facing questions for overlooking concerns about the group”. The publication also said that the underlying factual premise of the story was not disputed and that concerns regarding fairness and balance are not supported.   The publication also referred to information that became available after the publication of the article and noted that new evidence presented to the US Congress, the Israeli Parliament and in media reports, showed that not only was UNRWA complicit in the actions of 12 of its staff, but that it was also complicit in harbouring terrorists The publication said it is highly misleading and censorious to suggest that factual reporting, in context, is not in the public interest.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises the limitations of headlines to reflect the tenor of an article. Nonetheless, headlines are required to comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. The Council considers that the prominent front-page headline unfairly characterises the UNRWA as being complicit in the actions of the 12 workers who were alleged to have participated in the October 7 terror attacks on Israel.   The Council notes that at the time of publication, UNRWA had not been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by any nation state and it does not accept that the information referred to by the publication was sufficient to characterise it as such. The Council also does not accept that the first paragraph of the front-page article is sufficient to dispel this unfair characterisation. Accordingly, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   Although the Council considers the headline to be an unfair characterisation of the reported events, the Council notes that it is referring to a large overseas aid agency. In such circumstances, and in the absence of naming specific individuals within the organisation, the Council does not consider the headline to be substantially prejudicial. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   “Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.”