{"id":3046,"date":"2018-03-23T08:21:39","date_gmt":"2018-03-22T22:21:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/?p=3046"},"modified":"2018-03-23T08:21:39","modified_gmt":"2018-03-22T22:21:39","slug":"publication-the-limits-of-digital-constitutionalism-exploring-the-privacy-security-imbalance-in-australia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/2018\/03\/23\/publication-the-limits-of-digital-constitutionalism-exploring-the-privacy-security-imbalance-in-australia\/","title":{"rendered":"Publication:  The limits of (digital) constitutionalism: Exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Crime and Justice Research Centre members Dr Monique Mann and Dr Angela Daly, along with Justice PhD Candidate Michael Wilson, and QUT Law Associate Professor Nic Suzor recently published \u2018The limits of (digital) constitutionalism: Exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia\u2019 in the <strong>International Communication Gazette<\/strong><em>. <\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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 \u2018internet freedom\u2019 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 \u2018balancing\u2019 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\u2019s norms.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Keywords <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Cyber security, digital constitutionalism, human rights, metadata retention, online surveillance, privacy, security, securitization<\/p>\n<p>You can read the full article here: <a href=\"http:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1177\/1748048518757141?journalCode=gazb#articleShareContainer\">http:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1177\/1748048518757141?journalCode=gazb#articleShareContainer<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Crime and Justice Research Centre members Dr Monique Mann and Dr Angela Daly, along with Justice PhD Candidate Michael Wilson, and QUT Law Associate Professor Nic Suzor recently published \u2018The limits of (digital) constitutionalism: Exploring the privacy-security (im)balance in Australia\u2019 in the International Communication Gazette. \u00a0Abstract This article explores the challenges of digital constitutionalism in<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4341,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9754,9696,9712,5985],"tags":[11661,18832,9789,18833,18834,15184,18835,8460],"class_list":{"0":"post-3046","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-journal-articles","7":"category-publications","8":"category-staff","9":"category-students","10":"tag-cybersecurity","11":"tag-digitalconstitutionalism","12":"tag-humanrights","13":"tag-metadataretention","14":"tag-onlinesurveillance","15":"tag-privacy","16":"tag-securitization","17":"tag-security"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4341"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3046"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3047,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3046\/revisions\/3047"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qut.edu.au\/crime-and-justice-research-centre\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}