The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is an Australian act of parliament that prohibits minors under the age of 16 from holding an account on certain social media platforms. It is an amendment to the Online Safety Act 2021 and was passed by the Parliament of Australia on 29 November 2024. It imposes monetary penalties on social media companies that fail to take reasonable steps to prevent minors under 16 that are located in Australia from having accounts on their services. The legislation allows the government to determine which social media platforms must ban age‑restricted users and proclaim a date for the commencement of the ban, with those provisions taking effect on 10 December 2025. Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter, Threads, Twitch, Kick, and YouTube were age‑restricted on 10 December 2025, with the possibility that more platforms may be added. The act is being challenged in the High Court by the Digital Freedom Project. == Background == The ban on access to social media by young people by the federal government originated in November 2023, when shadow communications minister David Coleman introduced a private member's bill requiring the government to conduct a trial for age-verification technology on pornography and social media platforms. While the bill did not succeed, the Albanese government funded the trial in the 2024 Australian federal budget. In June 2024, opposition leader Peter Dutton pledged that a Coalition government would implement a ban on social media for under-16s within 100 days of taking office. The following month, prime minister Anthony Albanese announced the government would introduce legislation banning under-16s from social media. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was introduced into parliament by minister for communications Michelle Rowland on 21 November 2024, passing both houses on 28 November 2024. The ban on access to social media by young people by the federal government also gained momentum following an entreaty by the wife of the premier of South Australia, Peter Malinauskas, to her husband. She requested that he read The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt and take action to address the impact of social media on the mental health of children. The couple have four young children, and, thinking of them, the premier thought that government should play a part in helping parents to regulate use of social media by their children at home. Malinauskas contacted former High Court chief justice Robert French, who agreed to look at the issue, and in September 2024 handed the premier a 267 page proposal, which he dubbed a "Swiss Army knife" rather than a machete, to adjust to social media's "changing landscape and its complexity". The leaders of other states and territories gave their support to Malinauskas's idea, and he took the French report to National Cabinet to collaborate with chief ministers, premiers, and the prime minister. Community support swelled after stories of parents who had lost their children to suicide after being bullied on social media were published. Albanese himself was moved by a personal letter received from Kelly O'Brien, whose 12-year-old daughter Charlotte had taken her own life due to bullying at school. An event took place at the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session in September 2025 at which a mother spoke of her daughter's suicide as "death by bullying ... enabled by social media". The speech won support from world leaders in Greece, Fiji, Tonga and the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen. In early September 2024, South Australia proposed legislation similar to the federal law now in place. The state-based version was intended to ban users under the age of 14, unlike the federal law, which bans those under 16. The state-based law also proposed to require parental consent for 14 and 15‑year‑olds. Later in September, prime minister Anthony Albanese announced that his government intended to introduce legislation to set a minimum age requirement for social media. In November 2024, the federal government indicated their intention to engage the Age Check Certification Scheme following a tender process for an age assurance technology trial. The Albanese government's proposed ban was supported by the governments of every state and territory. Albanese described social media as a "scourge", and said "I want people to spend more time on the footy field or the netball court than they're spending on their phones", that family members are "worried sick about the safety of our kids online", and that social media "is having a negative impact on young people's mental health and on anxiety". Albanese's statements followed an earlier pledge by Liberal opposition leader Peter Dutton who was pushed by the early advocacy of shadow communications minister David Coleman to implement a ban on social media for under 16s within 100 days of being elected. The opposition organised an open letter signed by 140 experts who specialise in child welfare and technology. The opposition was concerned about the invasion of privacy that will occur with the introduction of identification-based age checks. An advocacy group for digital companies in Australia called the plans a "20th Century response to 21st Century challenges". A director of a mental health service voiced concerns, stating that "73% of young people across Australia who accessed mental health support did so through social media". == Implementation == Social media companies will receive a transition period of one year after the legislation is enacted to introduce reasonable controls preventing minors under the age of 16 from holding accounts on their services while physically located in Australia. Enforcement will involve fines of up to A$49.5 million for companies failing to take such steps, with no consequences for parents and children who violate the restrictions. There are no parental consent exceptions to the ban, and while the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) to access these services remains legal in Australia, the services are expected to try to stop under 16s from using VPNs to pretend to be outside Australia. The expectation is to make best-efforts to implement the ban on platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter, Threads, Twitch, Kick and YouTube. Some social media companies are now obligated to become good enough at profiling Australian children under 16 to satisfy the Australian government they tried to implement the ban to avoid being fined. Consequently, social media companies said they will try to identify restricted users using various methods including behavioural inferencing. On 5 November 2025, it was announced that online gaming platform Roblox will not be banned, but Reddit and live-streaming platform Kick will be added to the list of platforms to be banned. A report by Age Check Certification Scheme, a UK company recruited by the government to consult on the technology used to implement the restrictions, was issued in June 2025, ahead of the December deadline to implement the ban. In June 2025, the preliminary report was released, which stated that "there are no significant technological barriers" to implementing the ban. In late July 2025, Google warned that it would sue the Australian government if YouTube was included in the ban. On 30 July, the government announced that it would extend its social media age limit to include YouTube, following advice from Grant. On 30 July 2025, the minister for communications, Anika Wells, published the Online Safety (Age-Restricted Social Media Platforms) Rules 2025, which specify exactly which types of social media platforms will be banned for certain users. On 31 August 2025, the full report was released, which stated that it would technically be possible to implement the ban; however, coordination among different services is required to successfully implement it. It also highlighted the benefits and flaws of different methods of age verification. On 16 September 2025, it was announced that the eSafety Commissioner will be able to take legal action against social media companies that have not pursued reasonable steps to bar users under the age of 16, and that fines can range up to A$49.5 million against these companies in court. On 19 November 2025, Meta announced that from 4 December their platforms (Instagram, Facebook, and Threads) would be removing users under the age of 16 ahead of the 10 December deadline. Users will be able to scan a face or provide an identity document to prove their age. On 21 November 2025, the eSafety Commissioner announced that the live-streaming platform Twitch will be included in the ban, but that Pinterest would not be. In December 2025, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant suggested efforts to block users include use by social media companies of various "signals" to identify children that are
Smart data capture
Smart data capture (SDC), also known as 'intelligent data capture' or 'automated data capture', describes the branch of technology concerned with using computer vision techniques like optical character recognition (OCR), barcode scanning, object recognition and other similar technologies to extract and process information from semi-structured and unstructured data sources. IDC characterize smart data capture as an integrated hardware, software, and connectivity strategy to help organizations enable the capture of data in an efficient, repeatable, scalable, and future-proof way. Data is captured visually from barcodes, text, IDs and other objects - often from many sources simultaneously - before being converted and prepared for digital use, typically by artificial intelligence-powered software. An important feature of SDC is that it focuses not just on capturing data more efficiently but serving up easy-to-access, actionable insights at the instant of data collection to both frontline and desk-based workers, aiding decision-making and making it a two-way process. Smart data capture automates and accelerates capture, applying insights in real time and automating processes based on extracted input. Smart data capture is designed to be repeatable and scalable to reduce low-level manual tasks and eliminate human error. To achieve this goal, smart data capture solutions are often made available using specialist software installed on commodity hardware such as smartphones. However, some solutions may rely on specialized hardware such as dedicated scanning devices, wearables or shop floor robots. == Differences from OCR == Optical character recognition applications are typically concerned with the actual data capture process; they are intended to faithfully reproduce text, words, letters and symbols from a printed document. Smart data capture is multimodal, capable of extracting data from a wider range of semi-structured and unstructured sources, going beyond basic text recognition to offer a wider scope of applications. By extending functionality to provide actionable insights at the point of capture, SDC is also a two-way process (capture-display), while OCR is more commonly one-way (capture only), primarily used for data input. Smart data capture solutions typically have two parts: Data capture (which includes OCR, barcode scanning, object recognition) Functionality that then uses this data to provide actionable insights at the point of capture. == Applications == Smart data capture can be applied to almost any industry and application that requires visual information capture and interpretation. This may include: Retail Warehouse inventory control Logistics, handling and shipping Manufacturing Field service Healthcare Transport and travel Fraud detection
IBM 37xx
IBM 37xx (or 37x5) is a family of IBM Systems Network Architecture (SNA) programmable front-end processors used mainly in mainframe environments. All members of the family ran one of three IBM-supplied programs. Emulation Program (EP) mimicked the operation of the older IBM 270x non-programmable controllers. Network Control Program (NCP) supported Systems Network Architecture devices. Partitioned Emulation Program (PEP) combined the functions of the two. == Models == === 370x series === 3705 — the oldest of the family, introduced in 1972 to replace the non-programmable IBM 270x family. The 3705 could control up to 352 communications lines. 3704 was a smaller version, introduced in 1973. It supported up to 32 lines. === 371x === The 3710 communications controller was introduced in 1984. === 372x series === The 3725 and the 3720 systems were announced in 1983. The 3725 replaced the hardware line scanners used on previous 370x machines with multiple microcoded processors. The 3725 was a large-scale node and front end processor. The 3720 was a smaller version of the 3725, which was sometimes used as a remote concentrator. The 3726 was an expansion unit for the 3725. With the expansion unit, the 3725 could support up to 256 lines at data rates up to 256 kbit/s, and connect to up to eight mainframe channels. Marketing of the 372x machines was discontinued in 1989. IBM discontinued support for the 3705, 3720, 3725 in 1999. === 374x series === The 3745, announced in 1988, provides up to eight T1 circuits. At the time of the announcement, IBM was estimated to have nearly 85% of the over US$825 million market for communications controllers over rivals such as NCR Comten and Amdahl Corporation. The 3745 is no longer marketed, but still supported and used. The 3746 "Nways Controller" model 900, unveiled in 1992, was an expansion unit for the 3745 supporting additional Token Ring and ESCON connections. A stand-alone model 950 appeared in 1995. == Successors == IBM no longer manufactures 37xx processors. The last models, the 3745/46, were withdrawn from marketing in 2002. Replacement software products are Communications Controller for Linux on System z and Enterprise Extender. == Clones == Several companies produced clones of 37xx controllers, including NCR COMTEN and Amdahl Corporation.
Initialization vector
In cryptography, an initialization vector (IV) or starting variable is an input to a cryptographic primitive being used to provide the initial state. The IV is typically required to be random or pseudorandom, but sometimes an IV only needs to be unpredictable or unique. Randomization is crucial for some encryption schemes to achieve semantic security, a property whereby repeated usage of the scheme under the same key does not allow an attacker to infer relationships between (potentially similar) segments of the encrypted message. For block ciphers, the use of an IV is described by the modes of operation. Some cryptographic primitives require the IV only to be non-repeating, and the required randomness is derived internally. In this case, the IV is commonly called a nonce (a number used only once), and the primitives (e.g. CBC) are considered stateful rather than randomized. This is because an IV need not be explicitly forwarded to a recipient but may be derived from a common state updated at both sender and receiver side. (In practice, a short nonce is still transmitted along with the message to consider message loss.) An example of stateful encryption schemes is the counter mode of operation, which has a sequence number for a nonce. The IV size depends on the cryptographic primitive used; for block ciphers it is generally the cipher's block-size. In encryption schemes, the unpredictable part of the IV has at best the same size as the key to compensate for time/memory/data tradeoff attacks. When the IV is chosen at random, the probability of collisions due to the birthday problem must be taken into account. Traditional stream ciphers such as RC4 do not support an explicit IV as input, and a custom solution for incorporating an IV into the cipher's key or internal state is needed. Some designs realized in practice are known to be insecure; the WEP protocol is a notable example, and is prone to related-IV attacks. == Motivation == A block cipher is one of the most basic primitives in cryptography, and frequently used for data encryption. However, by itself, it can only be used to encode a data block of a predefined size, called the block size. For example, a single invocation of the AES algorithm transforms a 128-bit plaintext block into a ciphertext block of 128 bits in size. The key, which is given as one input to the cipher, defines the mapping between plaintext and ciphertext. If data of arbitrary length is to be encrypted, a simple strategy is to split the data into blocks each matching the cipher's block size, and encrypt each block separately using the same key. This method is not secure as equal plaintext blocks get transformed into equal ciphertexts, and a third party observing the encrypted data may easily determine its content even when not knowing the encryption key. To hide patterns in encrypted data while avoiding the re-issuing of a new key after each block cipher invocation, a method is needed to randomize the input data. In 1980, the NIST published a national standard document designated Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) PUB 81, which specified four so-called block cipher modes of operation, each describing a different solution for encrypting a set of input blocks. The first mode implements the simple strategy described above, and was specified as the electronic codebook (ECB) mode. In contrast, each of the other modes describe a process where ciphertext from one block encryption step gets intermixed with the data from the next encryption step. To initiate this process, an additional input value is required to be mixed with the first block, and which is referred to as an initialization vector. For example, the cipher-block chaining (CBC) mode requires an unpredictable value, of size equal to the cipher's block size, as additional input. This unpredictable value is added to the first plaintext block before subsequent encryption. In turn, the ciphertext produced in the first encryption step is added to the second plaintext block, and so on. The ultimate goal for encryption schemes is to provide semantic security: by this property, it is practically impossible for an attacker to draw any knowledge from observed ciphertext. It can be shown that each of the three additional modes specified by the NIST are semantically secure under so-called chosen-plaintext attacks. == Properties == Properties of an IV depend on the cryptographic scheme used. A basic requirement is uniqueness, which means that no IV may be reused under the same key. For block ciphers, repeated IV values devolve the encryption scheme into electronic codebook mode: equal IV and equal plaintext result in equal ciphertext. In stream cipher encryption uniqueness is crucially important as plaintext may be trivially recovered otherwise. Example: Stream ciphers encrypt plaintext P to ciphertext C by deriving a key stream K from a given key and IV and computing C as C = P xor K. Assume that an attacker has observed two messages C1 and C2 both encrypted with the same key and IV. Then knowledge of either P1 or P2 reveals the other plaintext since C1 xor C2 = (P1 xor K) xor (P2 xor K) = P1 xor P2. Many schemes require the IV to be unpredictable by an adversary. This is effected by selecting the IV at random or pseudo-randomly. In such schemes, the chance of a duplicate IV is negligible, but the effect of the birthday problem must be considered. As for the uniqueness requirement, a predictable IV may allow recovery of (partial) plaintext. Example: Consider a scenario where a legitimate party called Alice encrypts messages using the cipher-block chaining mode. Consider further that there is an adversary called Eve that can observe these encryptions and is able to forward plaintext messages to Alice for encryption (in other words, Eve is capable of a chosen-plaintext attack). Now assume that Alice has sent a message consisting of an initialization vector IV1 and starting with a ciphertext block CAlice. Let further PAlice denote the first plaintext block of Alice's message, let E denote encryption, and let PEve be Eve's guess for the first plaintext block. Now, if Eve can determine the initialization vector IV2 of the next message she will be able to test her guess by forwarding a plaintext message to Alice starting with (IV2 xor IV1 xor PEve); if her guess was correct this plaintext block will get encrypted to CAlice by Alice. This is because of the following simple observation: CAlice = E(IV1 xor PAlice) = E(IV2 xor (IV2 xor IV1 xor PAlice)). Depending on whether the IV for a cryptographic scheme must be random or only unique the scheme is either called randomized or stateful. While randomized schemes always require the IV chosen by a sender to be forwarded to receivers, stateful schemes allow sender and receiver to share a common IV state, which is updated in a predefined way at both sides. == Block ciphers == Block cipher processing of data is usually described as a mode of operation. Modes are primarily defined for encryption as well as authentication, though newer designs exist that combine both security solutions in so-called authenticated encryption modes. While encryption and authenticated encryption modes usually take an IV matching the cipher's block size, authentication modes are commonly realized as deterministic algorithms, and the IV is set to zero or some other fixed value. == Stream ciphers == In stream ciphers, IVs are loaded into the keyed internal secret state of the cipher, after which a number of cipher rounds are executed prior to releasing the first bit of output. For performance reasons, designers of stream ciphers try to keep that number of rounds as small as possible, but because determining the minimal secure number of rounds for stream ciphers is not a trivial task, and considering other issues such as entropy loss, unique to each cipher construction, related-IVs and other IV-related attacks are a known security issue for stream ciphers, which makes IV loading in stream ciphers a serious concern and a subject of ongoing research. == WEP IV == The 802.11 encryption algorithm called WEP (short for Wired Equivalent Privacy) used a short, 24-bit IV, leading to reused IVs with the same key, which led to it being easily cracked. Packet injection allowed for WEP to be cracked in times as short as several seconds. This ultimately led to the deprecation of WEP. == SSL 2.0 IV == In cipher-block chaining mode (CBC mode), the IV need not be secret, but must be unpredictable (In particular, for any given plaintext, it must not be possible to predict the IV that will be associated to the plaintext in advance of the generation of the IV.) at encryption time. Additionally for the output feedback mode (OFB mode), the IV must be unique. In particular, the (previously) common practice of re-using the last ciphertext block of a message as the IV for the next message is insecure (for example, this method was used by SSL 2.0). If an attacker knows
Cryptographic nonce
In cryptography, a nonce is an arbitrary number that can be used just once in a cryptographic communication. It is often a random or pseudo-random number issued in an authentication protocol to ensure that each communication session is unique, and therefore that old communications cannot be reused in replay attacks. Nonces can also be useful as initialization vectors and in cryptographic hash functions. == Definition == A nonce is an arbitrary number used only once in a cryptographic communication, in the spirit of a nonce word. They are often random or pseudo-random numbers. Many nonces also include a timestamp to ensure exact timeliness, though this requires clock synchronisation between organisations. The addition of a client nonce ("cnonce") helps to improve the security in some ways as implemented in digest access authentication. To ensure that a nonce is used only once, it should be time-variant (including a suitably fine-grained timestamp in its value), or generated with enough random bits to ensure an insignificantly low chance of repeating a previously generated value. Some authors define pseudo-randomness (or unpredictability) as a requirement for a nonce. Nonce is a word dating back to Middle English for something only used once or temporarily (often with the construction "for the nonce"). It descends from the construction "then anes" ("the one [purpose]"). A false etymology claiming it to stand for "number used once" or similar is incorrect. == Usage == === Authentication === Authentication protocols may use nonces to ensure that old communications cannot be reused in replay attacks. For instance, nonces are used in HTTP digest access authentication to calculate an MD5 digest of the password. The nonces are different each time the 401 authentication challenge response code is presented, thus making replay attacks virtually impossible. The scenario of ordering products over the Internet can provide an example of the usefulness of nonces in replay attacks. An attacker could take the encrypted information and—without needing to decrypt—could continue to send a particular order to the supplier, thereby ordering products over and over again under the same name and purchase information. The nonce is used to give 'originality' to a given message so that if the company receives any other orders from the same person with the same nonce, it will discard those as invalid orders. A nonce may be used to ensure security for a stream cipher. Where the same key is used for more than one message and then a different nonce is used to ensure that the keystream is different for different messages encrypted with that key; often the message number is used. Secret nonce values are used by the Lamport signature scheme as a signer-side secret which can be selectively revealed for comparison to public hashes for signature creation and verification. === Hashing === Nonces are used in proof-of-work systems to vary the input to a cryptographic hash function so as to obtain a hash for a certain input that fulfils certain arbitrary conditions. In doing so, it becomes far more difficult to create a "desirable" hash than to verify it, shifting the burden of work onto one side of a transaction or system. For example, proof of work, using hash functions, was considered as a means to combat email spam by forcing email senders to find a hash value for the email (which included a timestamp to prevent pre-computation of useful hashes for later use) that had an arbitrary number of leading zeroes, by hashing the same input with a large number of values until a "desirable" hash was obtained. Similarly, the Bitcoin blockchain hashing algorithm can be tuned to an arbitrary difficulty by changing the required minimum/maximum value of the hash so that the number of bitcoins awarded for new blocks does not increase linearly with increased network computation power as new users join. This is likewise achieved by forcing Bitcoin miners to add nonce values to the value being hashed to change the hash algorithm output. As cryptographic hash algorithms cannot easily be predicted based on their inputs, this makes the act of blockchain hashing and the possibility of being awarded bitcoins something of a lottery, where the first "miner" to find a nonce that delivers a desirable hash is awarded bitcoins.
Data event
A data event is a relevant state transition defined in an event schema. Typically, event schemata are described by pre- and post condition for a single or a set of data items. In contrast to ECA (Event condition action), which considers an event to be a signal, the data event not only refers to the change (signal), but describes specific state transitions, which are referred to in ECA as conditions. Considering data events as relevant data item state transitions allows defining complex event-reaction schemata for a database. Defining data event schemata for relational databases is limited to attribute and instance events. Object-oriented databases also support collection properties, which allows defining changes in collections as data events, too.
Kruskal count
The Kruskal count (also known as Kruskal's principle, Dynkin–Kruskal count, Dynkin's counting trick, Dynkin's card trick, coupling card trick or shift coupling) is a probabilistic concept originally demonstrated by the Russian mathematician Evgenii Borisovich Dynkin in the 1950s or 1960s discussing coupling effects and rediscovered as a card trick by the American mathematician Martin David Kruskal in the early 1970s as a side-product while working on another problem. It was published by Kruskal's friend Martin Gardner and magician Karl Fulves in 1975. This is related to a similar trick published by magician Alexander F. Kraus in 1957 as Sum total and later called Kraus principle. Besides uses as a card trick, the underlying phenomenon has applications in cryptography, code breaking, software tamper protection, code self-synchronization, control-flow resynchronization, design of variable-length codes and variable-length instruction sets, web navigation, object alignment, and others. == Card trick == The trick is performed with cards, but is more a magical-looking effect than a conventional magic trick. The magician has no access to the cards, which are manipulated by members of the audience. Thus sleight of hand is not possible. Rather the effect is based on the mathematical fact that the output of a Markov chain, under certain conditions, is typically independent of the input. A simplified version using the hands of a clock performed by David Copperfield is as follows. A volunteer picks a number from one to twelve and does not reveal it to the magician. The volunteer is instructed to start from 12 on the clock and move clockwise by a number of spaces equal to the number of letters that the chosen number has when spelled out. This is then repeated, moving by the number of letters in the new number. The output after three or more moves does not depend on the initially chosen number and therefore the magician can predict it.