In Defense of 5G: National Security and Patent Rights Under the Public Interest Factors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny Mok
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Patent Rights

scholarly journals The standing of the public interest

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (49) ◽  
pp. 46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amitai Etzioni
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Good ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Technological Developments ◽  
The Common ◽  
Liberal Communitarianism

Liberal communitarianism holds that a good society is based on a carefully crafted balance between individual rights and the common good; that both normative elements have the same fundamental standing and neither a priori trumps the other. Societies can lose the good balance either by becoming excessively committed to the common good (e.g. national security) or to individual rights (e.g. privacy). Even societies that have established a careful balance often need to recalibrate it following changes in historical conditions (such as the 2001 attacks on the American homeland) and technological developments (such as the invention of smart cell phones).

Should We Rely on Whistleblowers?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahul Sagar
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Public

This chapter examines the circumstances under which an official will be justified in violating laws that prohibit unauthorized disclosures of classified information. It explains why we cannot rely on the practice of whistleblowing to counter the misuse of state secrecy. It argues that an official may “blow the whistle” if he/she encounters classified information that clearly reveals wrongdoing posing an immediate and serious threat to the public interest, and if he/she makes a good faith effort to minimize the harm that the publication of this information may cause national security. It also asserts that the official must identify himself/herself so that we can assess whether his/her view of what constitutes a wrongful exercise of executive power is a disinterested one. Finally, it shows that would-be whistleblowers have little incentive to disclose their identity, because doing so makes them vulnerable to retaliation from their managers and colleagues.

Whistleblowing, National Security and the Constitutional Freedom of Political Communication

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-365
Author(s):  
Danielle Ireland-Piper ◽  
Jonathan Crowe
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
The Public ◽  
Responsible Government ◽  
Intelligence Operations ◽  
The One ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
The Relationship

Whistleblowers promote the values of responsible government and the rule of law by drawing attention to criminal or other forms of wrongdoing in publicly accountable organisations. This article explores the relationship between whistleblowing, national security and the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution. Legislation such as the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (‘ Crimes Act’), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (‘ ASIO Act’) and the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth) (‘ Border Force Act’) makes it an offence to reveal certain types of information obtained as a Commonwealth officer. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) (‘ PIDA’) offers limited protection to whistleblowers in the Commonwealth public sector, but this protection does not extend to information relating to intelligence operations. We argue that blanket criminalisation of unauthorised disclosure by Commonwealth officers or contractors under s 70 of the Crimes Act, along with similar prohibitions in s 35P of the ASIO Act and s 42 of the Border Force Act, offend the implied freedom of political communication by failing to strike an adequate balance between national security and organisational secrecy, on the one hand, and public debate and discussion, on the other. The courts should read down these laws to protect disclosures that hold significant public interest for discussion and debate over government policy or the performance of government officials.

Journalistic confidentiality in an age of data surveillance

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Ananian-Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
National Security ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Telecommunications Industry ◽  
Data Retention ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
Data Surveillance

This article examines two key components of the Australian Government’s data surveillance framework and critiques their impact on journalistic confidentiality. The 2015 mandatory data retention scheme and the 2018 telecommunications industry assistance scheme have been the subjects of considerable controversy and ongoing parliamentary reviews. The combined effect of these provisions is that journalists are unable to confidently fulfil their ethical obligation to maintain source confidentiality. The article recommends targeted reforms to more explicitly and appropriately balance the public interest in journalistic confidentiality (and relatedly, democracy, public accountability and the rule of law) against law enforcement and national security objectives.

Crafting a New Compact in the Public Interest

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-56
Author(s):  
Keith B. Alexander ◽  
Jamil N. Jaffer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Media Environment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fair Treatment ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Relationship

Leaks of highly classified information, popular views of government national security efforts, and changes in the media environment in recent years have resulted in a significant decay in the relationship between the government and the media and public trust in both institutions. To correct this harmful trend, a significant recalibration of the government-media relationship and the establishment of a new compact between them would best serve the public interest. The government should be more transparent about its national security efforts and more self-critical in classification decisions and should explain national security activities it undertakes, defending and justifying classified programs in detail whenever possible. The press must likewise be willing to afford the government fair treatment, including noting government efforts to protect national security, and to appropriately balance civil rights and privacy. It is important that these institutions work together to establish new mores on classification, government transparency, and a more responsible approach to classified disclosures.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

2021 ◽  
pp. 190-203
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

8. Public Interest Immunity and Related Matters

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Proper Functioning ◽  
The Law

Chapter 8 examines the doctrine of public interest immunity. It discusses the development of the law; ‘class’ claims and ‘contents’ claims; national security and analogous concerns; proper functioning of the public service; the two main contexts in which public interest immunity disputes in criminal cases have arisen—the disclosure of the identity of police informers, and the disclosure of the location of police observation points; how the doctrine of public interest immunity stands alongside, and probably overlaps with, the operations of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which governs the disclosure of sources of information contained in publications.

Nixon and the resurgence of executive privilege

2019 ◽  
pp. 140-178
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Baron
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
White House ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
Security Concerns

With the passage and implementation of FOIA under Johnson, the CLDC moves into the next iteration by examining the implementation, oversight, and amendment phase. This was driven in large part by Nixon's actions after coming into office. While Nixon talked about transparency, he took steps to expand White House control over information, not just following the precedent of Eisenhower, but in expanding the scope of executive privilege. Nixon asserted that executive privilege covered all White House conversations with any staff, appointees, and employees, expanding beyond the national security concerns in the public interest of his predecessors. Nixon's actions to expand executive power left Congress in the position of again grappling with ways to respond, including eventually amending FOIA to strengthen the law as an oversight measure. The first FOIA amendments began under Nixon but would not be finalized until President Ford was in office.

10. Public interest immunity

2019 ◽  
pp. 192-204
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter first explains exclusion of evidence on the grounds of the PII doctrine in relation to the public interest in non-disclosure of documents. The chapter examines areas of public interest that are covered by possible PII claims. These include national security, defence and foreign policy, protection of children, the identity of police informers, and confidential records held by public bodies.

10. Public interest immunity, closed material procedures, and disclosure

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
National Security ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter, which deals with public interest immunity (PII) and disclosure in criminal and civil cases, first explains exclusion of evidence on the grounds of the PII doctrine in relation to the public interest in non-disclosure of documents. It then considers disclosure in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003) and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 as well as disclosure in civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules. The chapter also examines areas of public interest that are covered by possible PII claims, including national security, defence and foreign policy, protection of children, the identity of police informers, and confidential records held by public bodies. It concludes with an outline of the Closed Material Procedures (CMPs).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document