Malicious data sharing to be outlawed in Australia
September 22, 2024 11:46 PM Subscribe
Malicious data sharing to be outlawed in Australia as part of privacy law update. The malicious release of personal data online, known as doxxing, will be outlawed and attract up to seven years in jail under new legislation being introduced to Federal parliament.
The bill will impose a maximum six years' imprisonment for publishing private details such as names, addresses and numbers, with the intent of causing harm.
That will be increased to seven years where a person or group is targeted on the basis of their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality or ethnic origin.
Australians will also be given the right to sue for damages if they have been the victim of a serious invasion of privacy, with the creation of a new statutory tort.
The bill will impose a maximum six years' imprisonment for publishing private details such as names, addresses and numbers, with the intent of causing harm.
That will be increased to seven years where a person or group is targeted on the basis of their race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality or ethnic origin.
Australians will also be given the right to sue for damages if they have been the victim of a serious invasion of privacy, with the creation of a new statutory tort.
(Here is a longer article making much the same points more eloquently than I could: The Jewish creatives’ WhatsApp leak was more whistleblowing than doxing. Here’s why [the conversation])
posted by Dysk at 12:16 AM on September 23 [10 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 12:16 AM on September 23 [10 favorites]
Meanwhile companies can continue to steal, create, buy and sell your data and then expose it to the Internet with no law at all.
But that's just business.
posted by Comstar at 12:50 AM on September 23 [14 favorites]
But that's just business.
posted by Comstar at 12:50 AM on September 23 [14 favorites]
How difficult is it to prove “intent” in Oz? It’s notoriously difficult in ‘murica.
posted by rubatan at 4:21 AM on September 23
posted by rubatan at 4:21 AM on September 23
...did Australia never have phone books like we had in the US?
posted by Jacqueline at 4:47 AM on September 23
posted by Jacqueline at 4:47 AM on September 23
Yeah, my immediate worry is that this will be used to silence legitimate public comment and criticism. Sometimes you have cases where it is in the public interest to reveal someone's identity - for example, the case of serial grifters in online communities. And would it also be considered doxxing to reveal a public figure's online behavior under a pseudonymous or anonymous account?
And yeah, that this seems to have political motivations prompted by a case that I wouldn't call "doxxing" is troubling. The article Dsyk links has more cases to think about in context of this law.
In some ways, it reminds me of arguments that we should end online anonymity to prevent harassment. That is, it's a law that targets a behavior that has legitimate uses because we can't think of a better way to tackle the illegitimate uses. (Notably, we can't think of taking harassment seriously.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:39 AM on September 23 [7 favorites]
And yeah, that this seems to have political motivations prompted by a case that I wouldn't call "doxxing" is troubling. The article Dsyk links has more cases to think about in context of this law.
In some ways, it reminds me of arguments that we should end online anonymity to prevent harassment. That is, it's a law that targets a behavior that has legitimate uses because we can't think of a better way to tackle the illegitimate uses. (Notably, we can't think of taking harassment seriously.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:39 AM on September 23 [7 favorites]
(Notably, we can't think of taking harassment seriously.)
The problem is that when people do try to take harassment seriously, the same arguments about silencing "legitimate" criticism come up as well. We as a society have bought in hard on the idea that things like harassment, abuse, and hate are the "price" of free speech and criticism, often championed by people who will never be on the receiving end of that harassment and abuse.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:25 AM on September 23 [10 favorites]
The problem is that when people do try to take harassment seriously, the same arguments about silencing "legitimate" criticism come up as well. We as a society have bought in hard on the idea that things like harassment, abuse, and hate are the "price" of free speech and criticism, often championed by people who will never be on the receiving end of that harassment and abuse.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:25 AM on September 23 [10 favorites]
Look at who is making the arguments, though - it isn't as simple as we as a homogenous society having accepted anything. The people who object to harassment legislation are usually the people engaging in harassment, the people worried about being silenced by anti-hate speech legislation are the people engaging in hate speech. Whereas the people worried about what I will call anti-sunlight/whistelblower legislation are generally a different group, with different motivations.
Not all opinions are created equal.
posted by Dysk at 6:32 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]
Not all opinions are created equal.
posted by Dysk at 6:32 AM on September 23 [4 favorites]
We as a society have bought in hard on the idea that things like harassment, abuse, and hate are the "price" of free speech and criticism, often championed by people who will never be on the receiving end of that harassment and abuse.
Notably, Australia has not - Australia has a much narrower conception of free speech than America does, and no constitutional right to it (although repeated High Court decisions have affirmed that Australians have an implicit right to free speech, as a democratic nation). Hate speech is already illegal and actionable, and while exceptions are made for public figures, those exceptions only go so far. While Americans are no doubt uncomfortable about Australia's willingness to restrict free speech, Australians are equally as uncomfortable with America's willingness to allow public figures to spew hate and cause actual harm to citizens, in the name of some theoretical harm that might be done to democracy if they stop.
My expectation is that any charges brought based on these laws are going to be watched pretty closely by libertarians of both the civil and arsehole variety. Australian law has some real low points, but a law like this could be removed in weeks if it proved to be enough of a disaster.
posted by Merus at 6:53 AM on September 23 [11 favorites]
Notably, Australia has not - Australia has a much narrower conception of free speech than America does, and no constitutional right to it (although repeated High Court decisions have affirmed that Australians have an implicit right to free speech, as a democratic nation). Hate speech is already illegal and actionable, and while exceptions are made for public figures, those exceptions only go so far. While Americans are no doubt uncomfortable about Australia's willingness to restrict free speech, Australians are equally as uncomfortable with America's willingness to allow public figures to spew hate and cause actual harm to citizens, in the name of some theoretical harm that might be done to democracy if they stop.
My expectation is that any charges brought based on these laws are going to be watched pretty closely by libertarians of both the civil and arsehole variety. Australian law has some real low points, but a law like this could be removed in weeks if it proved to be enough of a disaster.
posted by Merus at 6:53 AM on September 23 [11 favorites]
One of the papers I wrote in law school was called something like "Doxxing: Harassment, Vigilantism or Journalism" and it looked at the ethical lines in doxxing from the perspective of Canadian law. They are damn difficult lines to draw and like most difficult legal lines, rich people (both natural and corporate) will mostly get to draw them.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on September 23 [5 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on September 23 [5 favorites]
The "but phonebooks" comments I've been seeing about this drive me nuts.
Totally not comparable. This hinges on intent. The word "malicious" carries a lot of weight.
posted by constraint at 10:51 AM on September 23
Totally not comparable. This hinges on intent. The word "malicious" carries a lot of weight.
posted by constraint at 10:51 AM on September 23
Look at who is making the arguments, though -
I do, and quite often the arguments are being made by free speech "absolutists" who claim that actually making harassment and abuse legally actionable will have a "chilling effect" on speech while pointedly ignoring how harassment and abuse chills the speech and lives of minorities and the dispossessed. It wasn't too surprising that many of them seemed haunted after the testimony in the Alex Jones Sandy Hook lawsuits, when they were forced to actually reckon with the harm that Jones did with his speech without being able to just dismiss it.
From what I've seen, at least in US society we have a culture where harassment and abuse are taken as the "price" of free speech. The big thing is that there's finally pushback on this, and it's turning out that the people who argue we need to accept harassment and abuse to protect free speech don't actually have a good argument as to why.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:30 AM on September 23 [3 favorites]
I do, and quite often the arguments are being made by free speech "absolutists" who claim that actually making harassment and abuse legally actionable will have a "chilling effect" on speech while pointedly ignoring how harassment and abuse chills the speech and lives of minorities and the dispossessed. It wasn't too surprising that many of them seemed haunted after the testimony in the Alex Jones Sandy Hook lawsuits, when they were forced to actually reckon with the harm that Jones did with his speech without being able to just dismiss it.
From what I've seen, at least in US society we have a culture where harassment and abuse are taken as the "price" of free speech. The big thing is that there's finally pushback on this, and it's turning out that the people who argue we need to accept harassment and abuse to protect free speech don't actually have a good argument as to why.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:30 AM on September 23 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile companies can continue to steal, create, buy and sell your data and then expose it to the Internet with no law at all.
No, they can’t. Australia has a comprehensive privacy law. The US is basically the only developed nation that doesn’t.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:38 AM on September 24
No, they can’t. Australia has a comprehensive privacy law. The US is basically the only developed nation that doesn’t.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:38 AM on September 24
« Older Find Recipes For a Party Like It's 1999 | A glut of undemanding works Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Doxxing is releasing someone's contact details, address, real name, etc. Reporting it publicising what someone has said is not doxxing to me, and regularly falls into public interest or investigative journalism. "This public persona is actually this person!" can kind of be either depending on context, but "look at what this person actually says in private under their own name!" should be sacrosanct in my opinion.
posted by Dysk at 11:56 PM on September 22 [13 favorites]