Data associations and the protection of reputation online in Australia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 16899171 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel Joyce (0000-0003-0861-9505, University of Helsinki, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2017-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Big Data & Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2053-9517 • E-ISSN: 2053-9517 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/2053951717709829 |
| OpenAlex | W2617564420 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 12 |
This article focuses upon defamation law in Australia and its struggles to adjust to the digital landscape, to illustrate the broader challenges involved in the governance and regulation of data associations. In many instances, online publication will be treated by the courts in a similar fashion to traditional forms of publication. What is more contentious is the question of who, if anyone, should bear the responsibility for digital forms of defamatory publication which result not from an individual author’s activity online but rather from algorithmic associations. This article seeks, in part, to analyse this question, by reference to the Australian case law and associated scholarship regarding search engine liability. Reflecting on the tensions involved here offers us a fresh perspective on defamation law through the conceptual lens of data associations. Here the focus of the article shifts to explore some wider questions posed for defamation law by big data. Defamation law may come to play a significant role in emerging frameworks for algorithmic accountability, but these developments also call into question many of its traditional concepts and assumptions. It may be time to think differently about defamation and to consider its interrelationship with privacy, speech and data protection more fully. As a result, I conclude that the courts and policymakers need to engage more deeply and explicitly with the rationale(s) for the protection of reputation and that more thought needs to be given to changing conceptions of reputation in the context of data associations
Accountability · Big data · Business · Corporate governance · Data Protection Act 1998 · Political science · Public relations · Reputation · Scholarship · Sociology · Through-the-lens metering · Computer Science · Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies · Freedom of Expression and Defamation · Law · Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |