Latest news with #KJR
Hans India
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Hans India
Sridevi shifts focus to Kollywood, rekindling debate on Telugu heroines' opportunities
The debate around the limited opportunities for Telugu-speaking actresses in their home industry has once again resurfaced—this time with actress Sridevi of Court fame making headlines. Despite receiving critical acclaim and audience love for her debut performance, Sridevi has now signed her next project—not in Telugu—but in Tamil cinema. Sridevi impressed audiences with her acting and dancing prowess in Court, especially through the hit song Premalo. With the film's success at the box office, many assumed the Telugu industry would embrace her with open arms. However, contrary to expectations, the young actress has now moved towards Kollywood for her next venture, highlighting a persistent issue voiced by several Telugu-speaking heroines in the past. At a recent launch event, Sridevi was seen at the muhurat of her debut Tamil film, which stars popular producer KJR, known for backing films like Doctor and Hero with Sivakarthikeyan. Interestingly, KJR is making his acting debut through this project, which is being directed by Regan Stanislaus. This marks his second acting project after his first recently went on floors. Sridevi's shift to Tamil cinema echoes the experiences of other Telugu actresses like Swathi Reddy and Eesha Rebba, who have openly admitted that local heroines often aren't the first choice for Telugu filmmakers. Whether Sridevi didn't receive any compelling offers post-Court or chose Tamil projects over mediocre roles in Telugu, her decision speaks volumes about the challenges regional talent faces in their own backyard. The question lingers—why do so many talented Telugu actresses find stronger footing outside their home industry?
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Actress Sridevi of 'Court' fame makes debut in Tamil cinema with actor KJR's second film
Actress Sridevi, best known for her performance in the Telugu courtroom drama 'Court: State Vs A Nobody', is to make her debut in Tamil cinema with actor KJR's second film, which went on floors on Monday. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The actress announced that she was part of the film on her Instagram page. She wrote, "Kickstarting the pooja for #MiniStudios' production no.15, #KJR's next, with blessings and good vibes." Sridevi shot to limelight with her performance in Court that was directed by Ram Jagadish. The critically acclaimed film, which was presented by Telugu actor Nani and which dealt with the misuse of the POCSO Act, came in for widespread appreciation from men's rights activists. Director Ram Jagadish had in an interview disclosed that the spark for the story came when he came across a case in real life. The film, which hit screens on March 14 this year, was produced by Prashanthi Thipirneni. Cricketer Sreesanth to make his debut in Tamil cinema Meanwhile, sources said that shooting for actor KJR's upcoming film, which is being produced by Mini Studio, began with a traditional pooja in Chennai on Monday. The film, tentatively being referred to as Mini Studio #ProductionNo15, is the second film in which actor KJR will be seen playing the lead after 'Angikaaram'. The film is to be directed by debut director Regan Stanislaus, who worked as a co-director to Prasanth Pandiyarajan, best known for having directed the web series 'Vilangu'. Apart from KJR and Sridevi, the film will also feature , Singam Puli, Jayaprakash, Harish Kumar, Prithviraj, Indhumathi, Ashwin K Kumar, Joseph George, Aju Varghese and Srikanth among others. Cinematography for the film is by P V Shankar and music is by Ghibran. S Vinoth Kumar is producing this film on behalf of Mini Studio, which produced the hit film 'Mark Antony'. Meanwhile, post-production work on actor KJR's first film Angikaaram is happening at a brisk pace.
ABC News
20-06-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Trial finds age assurance can be done, as under-16s social media ban deadline looms
The organisation contracted by the government to assess technologies that could be used to implement the social media ban for under-16s says options exist to verify the age of users privately, robustly and effectively. Australia's world-leading laws to stop children and teenagers accessing some social media platforms are due to come into force in December, after the legislation passed parliament with bipartisan support late last year. A 12-month buffer was built into the legislation to allow time for the e-Safety commissioner to figure out how to implement the ban, with consultations to begin next week, and the Age Assurance Technology Trial to be completed. The Age Check Certification Scheme and software consultancy firm KJR were commissioned by the government last year to lead the testing and released their preliminary report on Friday, which offered a snapshot of "broad patterns and trends". Companies that offer age assurance technology voluntarily put themselves forward for the trial, with interviews and testing then conducted on selected methods. But the two-page preliminary report does not include details of what tests have been undertaken or the results of individual methods and technologies. "The preliminary findings indicate that there are no significant technological barriers preventing the deployment of effective age assurance systems," project director Tony Allen said. "These solutions are technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online." The government is not treating the trial as a test of whether the social media ban can be implemented, nor a process to identify a single product or method to be imposed on tech companies to meet their obligations under the new laws. The full results are expected to be handed to the communications minister by the end of next month, then made public later this year, but some experts have already raised concerns. Earlier this week, ABC News revealed that face-scanning technology tested on school students as part of the trial this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases. "I don't think the ban is viable," RMIT professor Lisa Given, who closely analysed the government's policy, told ABC News. The preliminary report also found "concerning evidence" that, in the absence of specific guidance from government, some social media companies were "over-anticipating the eventual needs of regulators" about information that might be required for future investigations. This included some providers that were found to be building tools to allow law enforcement agencies and regulators to retrace steps of verification, "which could lead to increased risk of privacy breaches due to unnecessary and disproportionate collection and retention of data". The age assurance trial was initially conceived to assess the viability of technology to prevent children from accessing pornography online and has considered a range of methods. It found there was no "one-size-fits-all" technology and that platforms would have to determine which one best suited their needs. Under the ban, anyone under the age of 16 will be blocked from using platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, a move the government and the Coalition argue is necessary to protect children and teenagers' mental health and wellbeing. While the ban only applies to young people, it will likely also require adults to verify their ages with social media providers. Tech giants will face fines of up to $50 million if they fail to take "reasonable steps" to keep children and teens off their platforms. There are no penalties for parents of young people who subvert the ban. Since the ban was announced, questions have been raised over whether existing technology could adequately police social media user ages, with the government yet to reveal how it will work in practice. It does not have to adopt any findings from the trial, which has been running for about eight months, while the laws prevent social media companies from forcing users to hand over their government IDs. Shadow communications minister Melissa McIntosh said the "time is ticking" for the government to implement the ban, which was first lobbied for by the Coalition. "We are six months away from the age limit commencing and social media companies need clarity now around what requirements must be put in place to protect our children," she said. "The government must get this right. No more young lives can be lost or families destroyed because of the toxicity of social media." A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells, who took over the portfolio from Michelle Rowland after the election, said the final findings of the trial would be provided to the eSafety Commissioner to inform her implementation of the laws. "The government will be guided by advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the implementation of the law," the statement read. "We know that social media age restrictions will not be the be-all and end-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer." An eSafety spokesperson welcomed the early findings and said the trial results would be just one input as they worked out how to implement the social media age restrictions. "We are pleased to see the trial suggests that age assurance technologies, when deployed the right way and likely in conjunction with other techniques and methods, can be private, robust and effective," they said.
RNZ News
19-06-2025
- RNZ News
Six months out from social media ban, age-checking tech mistakes kids for 37-year-olds
Face-scanning technology tests could only guess age within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases. Photo: Supplied/ABC Children as young as 15 were repeatedly misidentified as being in their 20s and 30s during Government tests of age-checking tools, sowing new doubts over whether the teen social media ban is viable. ABC News can reveal that face-scanning technology tested on school students this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 percent of cases. "It's definitely a problem," said Andrew Hammond, general manager of software consultancy firm KJR, which was tasked with running the trial. "So far, it's not perfect and it's not getting every child, but does that mean it's no good at all?" The full results of the age assurance technology trial were not expected to be released until later this year, but preliminary data had experts worried. "I don't think the ban is viable," said RMIT University information services professor Lisa Given, who had closely analysed the Government's policy. "Parents are definitely headed for a rude shock, in terms of what this legislation will actually deliver to them." Under the social media ban, more than 20 million Australians will be required to demonstrate they are 16 or older to log in to most major social media platforms. The ban is due to take effect in December, but the Government has yet to decide how it will be implemented, amid ongoing questions over whether age-checking technology is up to the job. The Government's technology trial, which has been running for eight months, was meant to provide some answers, but Professor Given said the public may be disappointed. "The accuracy level at 85 [percent] is actually quite low and an 18-month range is significant, when you're trying to identify a very particular age grouping," she said. "We are going to see a messy situation emerging immediately, where people will have what they call false positives, false negatives." Some students at Canberra's John Paul College, who previewed the technology as part of the Government's trial, were surprised, when their results were up to decades off the mark. Sixteen-year-old Andy was misidentified as 19, 37, 26, and 23 years old by various face-scanning tools he used. "I don't think the technology is ready yet to become a full-fledged primary defence system," he said. "It's pretty inconsistent." Seventeen-year-old Beth was given results ranging from 14-32. "I usually get told by other people that I don't look 17, I look older, so when it says 14, I thought… that's interesting." Her results from the other end of the spectrum were unwelcome for different reasons. "It's a bit insulting, because that's how old my aunty is," she said. "I don't want to look 32 just yet." Seventeen-year-old Nomi was especially concerned, when one tool mistook her for a 13-year-old. "I'm almost 18," she said. "If I try to sign up to an app and it tells me 'you're not meeting an age requirement', even though I am, that would be a problem for me." While the face-scanning results from the trial may not seem promising, Hammond said he was confident the ban would still work, because it did not rely exclusively on that tech. "If the solution to implementing the legislation was just facial age estimation, I'd say, 'Yep, it's probably not good enough'," he said. "However, it's just one of the tools in the toolkit that could be used." Age-verification providers are not discouraged by the early results either, arguing that other tech was always going to be necessary as a complement to get precise results. "You would never rely on age estimation for people who are literally at the age of 16," said Iain Corby from the Age Verification Providers Association, the industry body for age-check companies. "It was never going to be good enough for that," he said. One tool mistook Beth, 17, as being 32 years old. Photo: ABC News Corby said the early data reported by ABC News, showing an accuracy rate within 18 months for only 85 percent of students, is roughly what he expected. "I think even the best-in-class achieves about a year and a month, on average, above or below your real age." Among the methods tested were other age-estimation techniques that rely on biological traits, such as voice and hand movements, to guess the age of a user, but those methods struggled with the same accuracy issues and fewer companies offered the service. Another avenue was guessing a person's age based on their online activity, but that was also imprecise. Other tools offer a higher degree of certainty by inferring or even verifying a user's age, using data provided by third parties, such as banks, schools or healthcare providers. The strongest proof is a overnment-issued ID, such as a passport or a driver's license, but the legislation prevented social media companies from insisting on it. A last-minute amendment to the Bill, when it was passed back in November, meant platforms would be forced to offer users alternative methods to prove their age. That rule meant many Australians who could not easily provide those more reliable proofs might be forced to rely on less accurate methods, such as face scanning, if they wanted to use social media. "We do know, generally, that young people are going to be less likely to have a Government-issued ID that would satisfy some form of age verification," Given said. If facial scanning was on offer, under-16s who wanted to dodge the ban might be tempted to choose it anyway, in the hope they could fool it. "They might put glasses on, they might put make-up on, different hairstyle, different lighting, just to see if the system is actually able to accurately see that they're underage or over 16," Given said. The Government was expected to decide how the ban would work in the coming months, but one possible solution for the shakiness of facial scanning was a cascade-style system, similar to what we've see in bottle shops. Users might use face-scanning tech as a first hurdle and only be asked for further proof, if their result was within a 5-10-year margin of 16. "If you're within that margin for error, then you have to go to a second stage and find some other way of confirming that somebody is over the legal age," Corby said. Even so, everyone agreed it would not be perfect. "I'm optimistic, having seen the results," Hammond said. "Not necessarily making sure every 16-year-old doesn't get access, but making sure that most 16-year-olds don't get access to social media. "There's a number of solutions… and they have a level of accuracy. Now, whether the accuracy is good enough is a different question." Professor Given saw the end of the tech trial as an opportunity to reconsider the ban. "A responsible decision from Government would be weighing up the evidence in front of them and deciding whether that's actually a robust approach," she said. In the meantime, public expectations of the policy remained undeterred. "I think it's a really positive move for our young people," said John Paul College principal Craig Wattam. "I think that limiting their exposure to places that are potentially really dangerous is a really liberating thing." On the question of the tech's accuracy, he was also optimistic. "I guess this is the whole purpose of a trial," he said. "I'm confident that by the time we get closer to December… they may well have figured out more accurate ways to verify students' ages." A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells told ABC News the Government would be guided by advice from the eSafety Commissioner on how best to implement the ban. "We know that social media age-restrictions will not be the end-all, be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer," they said. - ABC
ABC News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Six months out from teen social media ban, age-checking tech mistakes kids for 37-year-olds
Children as young as 15 were repeatedly misidentified as being in their 20s and 30s during government tests of age-checking tools, sowing new doubts about whether the teen social media ban is viable. ABC News can reveal that face-scanning technology tested on school students this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases. "It's definitely a problem," said Andrew Hammond, general manager of software consultancy firm KJR, which was tasked with running the trial. "So far, it's not perfect, and it's not getting every child. But does that mean that it's no good at all?" The full results of the age assurance technology trial are not expected to be released until later this year, but preliminary data has experts worried. "I don't think the ban is viable," said Lisa Given, professor of information sciences at RMIT University, who has closely analysed the government's policy. Under the social media ban, more than 20 million Australians will be required to demonstrate that they are 16 or older to log in to most major social media platforms. It is due to take effect in December, but the government is yet to decide how it will be implemented, amid ongoing questions as to whether age-checking technology is up to the job. The government's technology trial, which has been running for eight months, was meant to provide some answers, but Professor Given said the public may be disappointed. "The accuracy level at 85 is actually quite low, and an 18-month range is significant when you're trying to identify a very particular age grouping," she said. "We are going to see a messy situation emerging immediately where people will have what they call false positives, false negatives". Some of the students at Canberra's John Paul College, who previewed the technology as part of the government's trial, were surprised when their results were up to decades off the mark. Sixteen-year-old Andy was misidentified as 19, 37, 26, and 23 years old by various face scanning tools he used. "I don't think the technology is ready yet to become a full-fledged primary defence system … It's pretty inconsistent," he said. Seventeen-year-old Beth was given results ranging from 14 to 32. "I usually get told by other people that I don't look 17, I look older. And so when it says 14, I thought … that's interesting." Her results from the other end of the spectrum were unwelcome for different reasons. "It's a bit insulting because that's how old my aunty is … I don't want to look 32 just yet," she said. Seventeen-year-old Nomi was especially concerned when one tool mistook her for a 13-year-old. "I'm almost 18. If I try to sign up to an app and it tells me 'you're not meeting an age requirement' even though I am, that would be a problem for me," she said. While the face scanning results from the trial might not seem promising, Mr Hammond said he is confident the ban will still work because it does not rely exclusively on that tech. "If the solution to implementing the legislation was just facial age estimation, I'd say 'yep, it's probably not good enough'," he said. "However, it's just one of the tools in the toolkit that could be used." Age verification providers are not discouraged by the early results either, arguing that other tech was always going to be necessary as a complement to get precise results. "You would never rely on age estimation for people who are literally at the age of 16," said Iain Corby from the Age Verification Providers Association, the industry body for age-check companies. Mr Corby said the early data reported by ABC News (showing an accuracy rate within 18 months for only 85 per cent of students) is roughly what he expected. "I think even the best-in-class achieves about a year and a month, on average, above or below your real age." Among the methods tested were other age-estimation techniques that rely on biological traits such as voice and hand movements to guess the age of a user. But those methods struggle with the same accuracy issues, and fewer companies offer the service. Another avenue is guessing a person's age based on their online activity, but that is also imprecise. Other tools offer a higher degree of certainty by inferring or even verifying a user's age, using data provided by third parties such as banks, schools, or healthcare providers. The strongest proof is a government-issued ID, such as a passport or a driver's license, but the legislation prevents social media companies from insisting on it. A last-minute amendment to the bill, when it was passed back in November, means platforms will be forced to offer users alternative methods to prove their age. That rule means many Australians who cannot easily provide those more reliable proofs may be forced to rely on less accurate methods, such as face scanning, if they want to use social media. "We do know generally that young people are going to be less likely to have a government-issued ID that would satisfy some form of age verification," said Professor Given. If facial scanning is on offer, under-16s who want to dodge the ban might be tempted to choose it anyway, in the hope they can fool it. "They might put glasses on, they might put makeup on, different hairstyle, different lighting, just to see if the system is actually able to accurately see that they're underage or over 16," said Professor Given. The government is expected to decide how the ban will work in the coming months, but one possible solution for the shakiness of facial scanning is a cascade-style system, similar to what we see in bottle shops. Users might use face scanning tech as a first hurdle, and only be asked for further proof if their result is within a five or 10-year margin of 16. "If you're within that margin for error, then you have to go to a second stage and find some other way of confirming that somebody is over the legal age," said Mr Corby Even so, everyone agrees it will not be perfect. "I'm optimistic, having seen the results," said Mr Hammond. "Not necessarily making sure every 16-year-old doesn't get access, but making sure that most 16-year-olds don't get access to social media. "There's a number of solutions … and they have a level of accuracy. Now, whether the accuracy is good enough is a different question." Professor Given sees the end of the tech trial as an opportunity to reconsider the ban. "A responsible decision from government would be weighing up the evidence in front of them and deciding whether that's actually a robust approach," she said. In the meantime, public expectations of the policy remain undeterred. "I think it's a really positive move for our young people," said the principal of John Paul College, Craig Wattam. "I think that limiting their exposure to places that are potentially really dangerous is a really liberating thing," he said. On the question of the tech's accuracy, he is also an optimist. "I guess this is the whole purpose of a trial," he said. A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells told ABC News the government would be guided by advice from the eSafety Commissioner on how best to implement the ban. "We know that social media age-restrictions will not be the end-all be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online, but it's a step in the right direction to keep our kids safer," they said.
