The Contested Semantics of ‘Security’ and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives

The report details a presentation by Professor Roger Clarke on the contested meaning of 'security' and a case study of Australian national security initiatives. Clarke argues that 'security' is often used ambiguously to justify the erosion of human rights. He presents survey results showing that Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) in Australia are rarely conducted and, when they are, are typically deficient, failing to protect civil liberties from intrusive government measures.

• The term 'security' lacks a single, reliable dictionary definition and is instead a broad concept relating to the absence of harm despite threatening events, which must always be understood within a specific context.
• Security is a contested semantic field where different stakeholders perceive different values in assets and different types of harm, leading to conflicts over whose security is being prioritised, particularly at the societal level.
• In Australia, national security measures introduced since 2001 have compromised numerous human rights, including freedom of movement, privacy, and the right to a fair trial, exacerbated by a lack of constitutional protection for human rights.
• A survey of 72 Australian Government national security projects revealed that Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) are uniformly inadequate; 79% of projects failed every test of a five-factor efficacy model, and only 4% passed all tests.
• The Australian legislature and executive have failed their obligations to society by accepting a biased conception of security and failing to impose pre- or post-controls on national security agencies.
• PIAs are not functioning as an effective control mechanism in Australia, often serving as 'window dressing' rather than a tool to avoid unjustified schemes or ensure the incorporation of mitigation measures.

APA

Bergersen, S. (2016). The Contested Semantics of ‘Security’ and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/272b71e9-7366-45bb-b7c8-2cf873b57d6b/The Contested Semantics of Security and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Bergersen, Stine. The Contested Semantics of ‘Security’ and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2016. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/272b71e9-7366-45bb-b7c8-2cf873b57d6b/The Contested Semantics of Security and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Bergersen |first1=Stine |title=The Contested Semantics of ‘Security’ and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=29 August 2016 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/272b71e9-7366-45bb-b7c8-2cf873b57d6b/The Contested Semantics of Security and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{bergersen2016contested, author = {Bergersen, Stine}, title = {{The Contested Semantics of ‘Security’ and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2016}, month = aug, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/272b71e9-7366-45bb-b7c8-2cf873b57d6b/The Contested Semantics of Security and the Curious Case of Privacy Impact Assessments applied to National Security Initiatives.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }