The “official media” have a strong motivation to invest in their image. They need to differentiate their product, and to explain to the paying public why their content costs money (whether paid directly or through advertising) and cannot be open and gratis like the output of the burgeoning “unofficial media”. Quality differences are the key, and a disciplined and principled approach to privacy is one of those quality differences.
Privacy and the prosumer
The APF has a further motivation in encouraging the “official media” to upgrade their codes. The “unofficial media” will be an ongoing source of privacy harm. As with all new technologies, institutional controls will emerge as societies gain experience. At some stage, it appears likely that some changes to laws will be appropriate. But insufficient experience has been gained to date, and any attempt to draft legislation now would be premature. In any case, reasonable public behaviour will depend a great deal more on conventions and informal sources of socialisation than on formal laws.
The existence of a consolidated set of professional guidelines on privacy and the media would represent an enormously valuable contribution to the socialisation of prosumer publishers.
Advertisement
Moreover, it is in the best interests of media corporations and media professionals alike to establish clear guidance about where the boundaries lie. On that basis, the “official media” can then reasonably call for the “unofficial media” to be subject to similar constraints.
The Australian Privacy Foundation has played its part by putting forward its proposals for a Framework and Guidelines. Privacy advocates are now urging industry and professional associations to upgrade their Codes, in order to provide much clearer guidance on the publication of personal data.
The author acknowledges the considerable contributions of fellow members of the Board of the Australian Privacy Foundation to the analysis supporting this opinion-piece, and in particular the experience of Nigel Waters and his submissions to the ALRC. Except where otherwise indicated, however, the opinions expressed here are those of this author, not the APF.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
1 post so far.
About the Author
Roger Clarke is a consultant in the management of information and information technology. He has spent 40 years in the IT industry, as professional, manager, consultant and academic. His focus during the last 20 years has been on eBusiness, information infrastructure, and dataveillance and privacy. His work encompasses corporate strategy, government policy, and public advocacy.
He is Principal of Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra. His many papers are available on his personal web-site, which attracts over 3 million hits p.a. and has accumulated more than 30 million hits since it was launched in 1995. He holds degrees in Information Systems from University of NSW, and a doctorate from the ANU. He was made a Fellow of the Australian Computer Society in 1986.
He is a Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre at the University of NSW, a Visiting Professor in the E-Commerce Programme at the University of Hong Kong, and a Visiting Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the Australian National University. He has been a Board member of the Australian Privacy Foundation since its inception in 1987.
reddit this
Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
StumbleUpon
