Subjects: Smart Glasses; Second Tranche of Reforms to the Privacy Act; One Nation; Digital Duty of Care.
SALLY SARA, HOST: The Federal Government is consulting on draft legislation it says will strengthen privacy protections and reduce risks related to artificial intelligence and wearable tech, like smart glasses. The proposed reforms known as a right to erasure, allowing customers to request large digital platforms destroy their personal information, as well as measures to stop businesses from trading impersonal data without clear permissions. Michelle Rowland is the Attorney-General and joins me now. Michelle Rowland, welcome back to breakfast.
MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good morning.
SARA: Before we look more broadly at these draft privacy laws, you’ve said the Government isn’t currently considering an import ban on smart glasses which have the ability to record covertly, but you’ve asked the Privacy Commissioner to look at the growing uptake as a matter of urgency. Why not pursue a ban?
ROWLAND: Well, for a couple of reasons at this stage. But I should point out that whilst an import ban is not contained in our draft legislation, the accompanying consultation paper does have a specific section going to how we address emerging technologies. Part of that is making sure that we maintain not only the principles base, but also the technological neutral approach that’s been taken in the Privacy Act to date, because we can’t anticipate what kinds of technologies will be developed in the future. But this is a very important issue for many Australians and I can understand why. You know, as a woman and as a mother, I’ve seen the stats where some 60% of point of view material that’s been uploaded to the internet in some studies has been shown to be potentially harassing and that’s a concern. It is also a concern, however, if we’re having this debate and we’re neglecting the very legitimate reasons for which some people in our society are using these devices and they include people who are vision impaired for whom this has been a real game changer for them, in their words. So, it’s important through this consultation that we listen to those voices as well. One of the key points here when we talk about addressing digital harms is that we identify the harms and we need to address those harms without stifling innovation. We need to understand that Australians have always been early adopters. So, it is about striking that balance, and I do want to stress that whilst I completely understand, and they are very legitimate concerns that people have about nefarious use, the Government doesn’t want to see that nefarious use, but we do want to make sure that we get this right, that we get the balance appropriate, and also that this is a long-term piece of reform. Wearables and information processing devices like this aren’t new. They’re going to keep being developed, and we want to make sure that we’ve got robust and sustainable laws and we’re not having a regulatory environment that’s playing whack a mole every time a device or a technology is developed that could be used in harmful ways.
SARA: Minister, you have talked about this, about a potential game of whack a mole that you face in responding to this proliferation of new technology. Does the pace of technological change mean we’re always going to be playing catch up legislatively, or do you think stronger laws can prevent new forms of harm before they arise?
ROWLAND: Look, I think that the approach of Government should always be the latter, and the fact is that the Privacy Act has existed since 1988, so it predates the internet. It’s only been applicable to the private sector for the last 25 years. But around the world, privacy has actually been an effective tool in many respects. A tool to make sure that people have some control and some agency over their personal information, but that has eroded as technology has developed. You, me, your listeners, 25 years ago, we would’ve handed over a lot of our personal information to get a free email address. These days, that personal information, we don’t know where it has ended up or the uses to which it’s been put in very many cases. So, what we are seeking to do with this tranche of reform is really take some, what I think are really substantial steps, looking at the tests for what companies actually need in order to provide us with services, not just having consents that are meaningless, being able to request erasure of personal information from large digital platforms and search engines, but also making consent more meaningful and making sure that businesses can’t just trade in our personal information without clear permission. Now, I think that these are really important standards which Australians would rightly expect and will go a long way to improving how we interact in our digital environment as we move into this age of AI.
SARA: The Government has proposed this right to erasure, which would allow people to request their personal information be removed and destroyed. Why limit the right to large digital platforms? Why not make it available for individuals applying to any organisation?
ROWLAND: It’s a valid question and one we have considered, because in the EU, for example, which is one of the standout jurisdictions that does have these provisions, it does apply to any organisation. We have chosen in Australia to – well what we’ve proposed through this legislation, that this apply to where the harms and where the users are most likely to exist and they are large digital platforms like social media and search engines. That is where the vast majority of data is now utilised and utilised without people knowing how and why it’s being utilised. We’re also obviously very conscious of the impost on business in this regard and we have seen through our analysis, mixed reports from the EU around the effectiveness of it applying to every eligible organisation, not just those digital platforms. So, we’ve taken what we think is a balanced approach and I think that’s one again, this good-faith consultation we’ll seek views on, but it’s one where I think we can get the balance right.
SARA: You’re listening to Breakfast and you’re hearing from the Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland. On another issue, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson says the Prime Minister and Treasurer have, quote, crossed the line by telling Australians that their democratically elected opponents are dangerous and a threat to their country, and quote, this is how political violence is incited. Let’s take a listen.
GRAB: He’s actually put me in such a position by this violence, this talk that’s coming out of him. What he’s doing is putting me in a position, threats against me now, that I have to have Federal Police protection with me whenever, you know, I’m out there meeting people. It’s a shame he’s caused this and I don’t particularly want it. I want to feel safe in my own country.
SARA: That’s One Nation leader Pauline Hanson. What do you make of Senator Hanson’s comments and concerns there?
ROWLAND: Well, I think we should take a step back for a minute and I think your listeners need to be aware of this fact, and I say this as a female politician who now holds a senior position in the Cabinet and that is, it is dangerous to be a politician in Australia today. It’s dangerous to be a high-profile woman. It is dangerous to be going out in public in some instances. I can say this as someone who has been in Parliament for 16 years and I would go out, I would do mobile offices often announced or unannounced. The prevalence of algorithms that are feeding not only hate, but also extremism against not only myself but many other politicians right across the aisle is completely unacceptable and it is out of control. I would suggest that Senator Hanson should examine what her party and what her ideology and her behaviour is doing, and whether or not that is encouraging that. When you go on and you entertain some of the individuals whom she has been entertaining, who are not only convicted criminals, when you admit that you have a party that has been infiltrated by extremists and neo-Nazis, this is exactly the kind of danger to which politicians are being put in this country. I don’t wish ill on Ms. Hanson in a physical way, I don’t wish any politician any ill will, irrespective of their political persuasion, but I think sometimes when comments like this are made, one needs to look at oneself and one’s behaviour and the kinds of standards that they accept into their own party and their own ideology.
SARA: Just finally, on the Digital Duty of Care, the Government’s also developing a Digital Duty of Care which will give Australians the ability to opt out of social media algorithms. How do you envisage that it would work in practicse?
ROWLAND: Well, firstly, this Digital Duty of Care is one that has been worked on for some time and it’s one which you’ll be aware that I championed as the previous Communications Minister, and it is very important in terms of this Government’s ongoing agenda with keeping Australians safe. What we are looking at, is that we need to make sure that people who are utilising digital platforms are able to do so in a way that is safe, that is not one that is susceptible to being fed algorithms that simply reinforce not only stereotypes, but behaviours that, again, are harmful to Australians. So, there are two points here. The first is that the obligation will be on the digital platform itself to make sure that they undertake what is set out in the Digital Duty of Care to keep their users safe, and you would have seen reports the Government is considering this right across different portfolios, including communications and including across women’s safety, whether this should be an opt in or opt out mechanism for algorithms. Now, these are being considered very closely and the upshot of this is we want to create a safer environment for people to be using social media.
SARA: Michelle Rowland, thank you.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.
