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. 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 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 of 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.

Going global: Comparing Chinese mobile applications’ data and user privacy governance at home and abroad

“…Certain features of the app, such as the "security clearance" declaration during account deletion for domestic versions of Chinese mobile apps also shows the prioritisation of national security over the individual right to privacy as key doctrines in China's approach to data and privacy protection under the banner of internet sovereignty. This, however, is not unique to China as national security and privacy protection is portrayed in many policy debates and policymaking processes as a zero-sum game (Mann, Daly, Wilson, & Suzor, 2018). The latest restrictions imposed by the Trump administration on TikTok and WeChat in the US citing concerns over the apps' data collection and data sharing policies (Yang and Lin, 2020) is just another example of the conundrum China-based apps face in their course of global expansion and global geopolitics centered around mobile and internet technologies.…”

VPNs as boundary objects of the internet: (mis)trust in the translation(s)

“…People searching for VPNs in Australia will probably not be using VPNs. Australia provides an interesting case: an intellectual property morass of ' geoblocked' content streams that has allowed VPNs to proliferate (Lobato and Meese, 2016), while its data-retention regime has triggered fears of violation of privacy (Mann, 2018) in a developed and liberal democracy that is sliding to increasing authoritarian secrecy, surveillance, and suppression of speech (Molnar, 2017;Lidberg and Muller, 2019) The specific 'in process' walkthrough of VPNs identified below show the discourses that users encounter when products are being explained to users. These steps involve movement of descriptions of the boundary object from the technical specifics and into the abstract metaphorical registers.…”

Digital justice in Australian visa application processes?

“…Australia is especially at risk of reproducing these digital divides due to our limited digital constitutionalism. 26 Mann et al argue that while there is now some recognition of the importance of individual freedoms with respect to digital spaces, predominantly in that 'individual rights are routinely discounted against collective rights to security', 27 Australia tends to ignore digital injustices at the expense of a purported greater good, at least in the context of metadata retention. If AI is adopted for visa processing, then individual rights for a fair and appropriate assessment may also be forfeited for collective economic interests as defined by the government.…”