Digital Duty of Care: The Government Wants to Spy on Your Private Messages and Stop You Criticizing Them. By the IPA.
The government is using online safety, particularly children’s safety, to justify a much broader system of internet surveillance, regulation and potential political censorship.
1. The legislation would regulate almost the entire internet
DDoC imposes a general duty to prevent online harm rather than targeting specific, demonstrable problems. It uses vague terms such as reasonably foreseeable risks, appropriate action and effective measures. Practical rules will be developed through regulations and guidance rather than directly debated in Parliament. The legislation would establish an open-ended regulatory framework whose eventual scope is difficult to predict.
2. Private emails and files could become subject to surveillance (2:24–7:15)
The proposed requirements could force services such as Gmail and Google Drive to introduce age verification and scan private emails, messages and stored files. Item 53 of the bill would provide access to exemptions and privileges involving:
- Political opinions and search histories.
- Biometric information.
- Racial or ethnic information.
- Sexual orientation and other sensitive personal details.
- Information that might be shared with overseas regulators.
Importantly, these are the witnesses’ interpretations of the bill’s potential consequences, not evidence that the Commissioner is already conducting such surveillance.
3. Political profiling could become possible (7:45–8:52)
One witness gives the hypothetical example of someone who voted No in the Voice referendum being classified as more likely to publish supposedly harmful content. He likens this to pre-crime: authorities identifying potential offenders before they have actually done anything unlawful.
4. The proposed law could encourage censorship without explicitly ordering it (9:00–14:10)
If internet companies face substantial financial penalties for failing to prevent vaguely defined harms, they may become extremely cautious about what they allow users to publish. With potential penalties of up to $109 million, companies could respond by removing lawful content rather than risk regulatory action.
5. The witnesses see a connection with earlier attempts to regulate speech (9:47–13:10)
The government has repeatedly sought broader powers over political discussion through three different legislative initiatives:
- Misinformation and disinformation legislation.
- Proposed hate speech restrictions.
- The new Digital Duty of Care legislation.
Each initiative has a different public justification but shares a common objective of expanding government control over online speech. Children’s safety has become the latest political justification for these powers.
6. Independent bloggers and podcasters might be particularly vulnerable (22:56–28:19)
The government could use the legislation to silence politically influential podcasters and independent media. Professional journalism receives special treatment, but why should they when ordinary Australians, bloggers and independent commentators have the same interest in discussing political affairs?
The IPA does not identify a specific automatic shutdown mechanism. Instead, it argues that the combination of vague obligations, regulatory discretion and substantial penalties could make censorship possible.
For example, does this blog qualify for a professional news exemption? Presumably not. So, Australia would go back to the pre-Internet world where only a few, easily controllable organizations have an effective ability to comment on current affairs or criticize politicians.
President Xi would approve.
hat-tip Stephen Neil