The limits of (digital) constitutionalism: exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia

Monique Mann, Angela Daly, Michael Wilson, Nicolas Suzor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article explores the challenges of digital constitutionalism in practice through a case study examining how concepts of privacy and security have been framed and contested in Australian cyber security and telecommunications policy-making over the last decade. The Australian Government has formally committed to ‘internet freedom’ norms, including privacy, through membership of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC). Importantly, however, this commitment is non-binding and designed primarily to guide the development of policy by legislators and the executive government. Through this analysis, we seek to understand if, and how, principles of digital constitutionalism have been incorporated at the national level. Our analysis suggests a fundamental challenge for the project of digital constitutionalism in developing and implementing principles that have practical or legally binding impact on domestic telecommunications and cyber security policy. Australia is the only major Western liberal democracy without comprehensive constitutional human rights or a legislated bill of rights at the federal level; this means that the task of ‘balancing’ what are conceived as competing rights is left only to the legislature. Our analysis shows that despite high-level commitments to privacy as per the Freedom Online Coalition, individual rights are routinely discounted against collective rights to security. We conclude by arguing that, at least in Australia, the domestic conditions limit the practical application and enforcement of digital constitutionalism’s norms.

LanguageEnglish
Pages369-384
Number of pages16
JournalInternational Communication Gazette
Volume80
Issue number4
Early online date15 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

constitutionalism
Telecommunication
privacy
telecommunication
coalition
Internet
commitment
security policy
bill
human rights
democracy

Keywords

  • cyber security
  • digital constitutionalism
  • human rights
  • metadata retention
  • online surveillance
  • privacy
  • securitisation
  • security

Cite this

@article{f3ac1ea98f404d0d82c5addc478f1e66,
title = "The limits of (digital) constitutionalism: exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia",
abstract = "This article explores the challenges of digital constitutionalism in practice through a case study examining how concepts of privacy and security have been framed and contested in Australian cyber security and telecommunications policy-making over the last decade. The Australian Government has formally committed to ‘internet freedom’ norms, including privacy, through membership of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC). Importantly, however, this commitment is non-binding and designed primarily to guide the development of policy by legislators and the executive government. Through this analysis, we seek to understand if, and how, principles of digital constitutionalism have been incorporated at the national level. Our analysis suggests a fundamental challenge for the project of digital constitutionalism in developing and implementing principles that have practical or legally binding impact on domestic telecommunications and cyber security policy. Australia is the only major Western liberal democracy without comprehensive constitutional human rights or a legislated bill of rights at the federal level; this means that the task of ‘balancing’ what are conceived as competing rights is left only to the legislature. Our analysis shows that despite high-level commitments to privacy as per the Freedom Online Coalition, individual rights are routinely discounted against collective rights to security. We conclude by arguing that, at least in Australia, the domestic conditions limit the practical application and enforcement of digital constitutionalism’s norms.",
keywords = "cyber security, digital constitutionalism, human rights, metadata retention, online surveillance, privacy, securitisation, security",
author = "Monique Mann and Angela Daly and Michael Wilson and Nicolas Suzor",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1748048518757141",
language = "English",
volume = "80",
pages = "369--384",
number = "4",

}

The limits of (digital) constitutionalism : exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia. / Mann, Monique; Daly, Angela; Wilson, Michael; Suzor, Nicolas.

Vol. 80, No. 4, 01.06.2018, p. 369-384.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The limits of (digital) constitutionalism

T2 - exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia

AU - Mann, Monique

AU - Daly, Angela

AU - Wilson, Michael

AU - Suzor, Nicolas

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - This article explores the challenges of digital constitutionalism in practice through a case study examining how concepts of privacy and security have been framed and contested in Australian cyber security and telecommunications policy-making over the last decade. The Australian Government has formally committed to ‘internet freedom’ norms, including privacy, through membership of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC). Importantly, however, this commitment is non-binding and designed primarily to guide the development of policy by legislators and the executive government. Through this analysis, we seek to understand if, and how, principles of digital constitutionalism have been incorporated at the national level. Our analysis suggests a fundamental challenge for the project of digital constitutionalism in developing and implementing principles that have practical or legally binding impact on domestic telecommunications and cyber security policy. Australia is the only major Western liberal democracy without comprehensive constitutional human rights or a legislated bill of rights at the federal level; this means that the task of ‘balancing’ what are conceived as competing rights is left only to the legislature. Our analysis shows that despite high-level commitments to privacy as per the Freedom Online Coalition, individual rights are routinely discounted against collective rights to security. We conclude by arguing that, at least in Australia, the domestic conditions limit the practical application and enforcement of digital constitutionalism’s norms.

AB - This article explores the challenges of digital constitutionalism in practice through a case study examining how concepts of privacy and security have been framed and contested in Australian cyber security and telecommunications policy-making over the last decade. The Australian Government has formally committed to ‘internet freedom’ norms, including privacy, through membership of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC). Importantly, however, this commitment is non-binding and designed primarily to guide the development of policy by legislators and the executive government. Through this analysis, we seek to understand if, and how, principles of digital constitutionalism have been incorporated at the national level. Our analysis suggests a fundamental challenge for the project of digital constitutionalism in developing and implementing principles that have practical or legally binding impact on domestic telecommunications and cyber security policy. Australia is the only major Western liberal democracy without comprehensive constitutional human rights or a legislated bill of rights at the federal level; this means that the task of ‘balancing’ what are conceived as competing rights is left only to the legislature. Our analysis shows that despite high-level commitments to privacy as per the Freedom Online Coalition, individual rights are routinely discounted against collective rights to security. We conclude by arguing that, at least in Australia, the domestic conditions limit the practical application and enforcement of digital constitutionalism’s norms.

KW - cyber security

KW - digital constitutionalism

KW - human rights

KW - metadata retention

KW - online surveillance

KW - privacy

KW - securitisation

KW - security

U2 - 10.1177/1748048518757141

DO - 10.1177/1748048518757141

M3 - Article

VL - 80

SP - 369

EP - 384

IS - 4

ER -