Official access to encrypted communications in New Zealand: Not more powers but more principle?

B. Keith
{"title":"Official access to encrypted communications in New Zealand: Not more powers but more principle?","authors":"B. Keith","doi":"10.1177/1473779520908293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although New Zealand is a member of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence community, it has taken a relatively cautious and in recent years often deliberative approach to counterterrorism powers, including in relation to access to encrypted communications. That approach can be seen to reflect New Zealand’s security, legal and political context and in particular its tendencies to independence, pragmatism and support for human rights. It is also apparent in the responses to date to the deaths of 51 people in the March 2019 attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and, in particular, in the Christchurch Call, an initiative against terrorist and violent extremist content online. The Call is a non-binding standard adopted in cooperation with numerous other governments and large online service providers and includes commitments to transparency and human rights. As Five Eyes countries’ individual and collective positions concerning access to encrypted communications become increasingly forceful, the question is whether New Zealand will follow those positions or pursue more principled, collaborative and likely more workable measures, in line with its wider approach and the example of the Call.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"49 1","pages":"199 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779520908293","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779520908293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Although New Zealand is a member of the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence community, it has taken a relatively cautious and in recent years often deliberative approach to counterterrorism powers, including in relation to access to encrypted communications. That approach can be seen to reflect New Zealand’s security, legal and political context and in particular its tendencies to independence, pragmatism and support for human rights. It is also apparent in the responses to date to the deaths of 51 people in the March 2019 attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand and, in particular, in the Christchurch Call, an initiative against terrorist and violent extremist content online. The Call is a non-binding standard adopted in cooperation with numerous other governments and large online service providers and includes commitments to transparency and human rights. As Five Eyes countries’ individual and collective positions concerning access to encrypted communications become increasingly forceful, the question is whether New Zealand will follow those positions or pursue more principled, collaborative and likely more workable measures, in line with its wider approach and the example of the Call.
新西兰官方访问加密通信:不是更多的权力,而是更多的原则?
尽管新西兰是“五眼”情报界的成员,但近年来,它对反恐权力采取了相对谨慎且经常深思熟虑的态度,包括在获取加密通信方面。可以看出,这种做法反映了新西兰的安全、法律和政治背景,特别是其独立、务实和支持人权的倾向。这一点在迄今为止对2019年3月新西兰克赖斯特彻奇两座清真寺遇袭造成51人死亡的回应中也很明显,尤其是在克赖斯特彻奇呼吁中,这是一项打击网上恐怖和暴力极端主义内容的倡议。《呼吁》是与许多其他政府和大型在线服务提供商合作制定的一项不具约束力的标准,其中包括对透明度和人权的承诺。随着“五眼”国家在获取加密通信方面的个人和集体立场变得越来越有力,问题是新西兰是否会遵循这些立场,或者根据其更广泛的方法和《呼吁》的例子,采取更原则、更合作、可能更可行的措施。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信