Reform in Australia: A Focus on Informed Consent

Rob Nicholls
{"title":"Reform in Australia: A Focus on Informed Consent","authors":"Rob Nicholls","doi":"10.54648/gplr2022018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the Australian privacy framework in the context of both the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry (DPI) and the Consumer Data Right (CDR). This analysis extends to informed consent and attitudes to unfairness and unconscionability. The article offers potential solutions to the current patchwork approach which go further than the Government response to the DPI. It argues that the Australian Government’s response is not an adequate response nor a set of suitable solutions to the problem.\nThe article proposes a two-pronged approach that recognizes the urgency of the issue through the suggestion of a series of ‘quick policy wins’ that will result in more meaningful and effective protection for consumers and further systemic, long-term recommendations for change that can be achieved through policy development, further consultation and integration with other existing legislation. The quick policy wins centre on three specific changes, including definitional updates, content and structure of online standard form agreements and enforcement, penalties and sanctions, and long-term solutions. The long-term solutions are proposed to include regulation of website design, better integration of the laws, regulators and enforcement bodies, a faster, more consistent pace of policy review and recognition of the societal and human benefit of informed consent to online standard form agreements.\nAustralia, Digital Platforms, Consumer Data Right, Informed Consent, Reform","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Privacy Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2022018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyses the Australian privacy framework in the context of both the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platforms Inquiry (DPI) and the Consumer Data Right (CDR). This analysis extends to informed consent and attitudes to unfairness and unconscionability. The article offers potential solutions to the current patchwork approach which go further than the Government response to the DPI. It argues that the Australian Government’s response is not an adequate response nor a set of suitable solutions to the problem. The article proposes a two-pronged approach that recognizes the urgency of the issue through the suggestion of a series of ‘quick policy wins’ that will result in more meaningful and effective protection for consumers and further systemic, long-term recommendations for change that can be achieved through policy development, further consultation and integration with other existing legislation. The quick policy wins centre on three specific changes, including definitional updates, content and structure of online standard form agreements and enforcement, penalties and sanctions, and long-term solutions. The long-term solutions are proposed to include regulation of website design, better integration of the laws, regulators and enforcement bodies, a faster, more consistent pace of policy review and recognition of the societal and human benefit of informed consent to online standard form agreements. Australia, Digital Platforms, Consumer Data Right, Informed Consent, Reform
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚的改革:关注知情同意
本文在澳大利亚竞争和消费者委员会的数字平台调查(DPI)和消费者数据权(CDR)的背景下分析了澳大利亚的隐私框架。这种分析延伸到知情同意和对不公平和不合理的态度。这篇文章为目前的拼凑办法提供了可能的解决办法,比政府对新闻部的反应更进一步。它认为,澳大利亚政府的反应既不是适当的反应,也不是一套适当的解决办法。文章提出了一个双管齐下的方法,通过一系列“快速政策胜利”的建议来认识到问题的紧迫性,这些建议将为消费者带来更有意义和更有效的保护,并通过政策制定、进一步磋商和与其他现有立法的整合来实现进一步的系统性、长期的变革建议。快速的政策胜利集中在三个具体变化上,包括定义更新、在线标准格式协议和执行的内容和结构、处罚和制裁以及长期解决方案。建议的长期解决方案包括对网站设计的监管,更好地整合法律、监管机构和执法机构,更快、更一致地进行政策审查,并承认对在线标准格式协议的知情同意对社会和人类的好处。澳大利亚,数字平台,消费者数据权利,知情同意,改革
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: Key Privacy Concepts in the EU and Canada The Personal Data Under the GDPR: Concept, Elements, and Boundaries News: APAC Privacy News Collection of Personal Information in Canadian Law Case Note: Strengthening the Role of Google? Recent Developments in the Right to Be Forgotten Case Law of the CJEU (TU and RE v. Google LLC, C-460/20)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1