Political Parties & Voter Privacy: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States in Comparative Perspective

Howard, Philip N., and Daniel Kreiss. 2009. Political Parties & Voter Privacy: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States in Comparative Perspective. World Information Access Project Working Paper #2009.1. Seattle: University of Washington.

44 Pages Posted: 20 Apr 2015

See all articles by Philip N. Howard

Philip N. Howard

University of Washington - Department of Communication; University of Washington - Henry. M. Jackson School of International Studies; University of Washington - The Information School; University of Oxford - Oxford Internet Institute; University of Oxford - Oxford Internet Institute

Daniel Kreiss

Stanford University

Date Written: 2009

Abstract

This study analyzes the privacy practices of political parties in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Comparative analysis — across countries and between political parties — reveals much about the strengths and weaknesses of current practices, and the role of political parties and policy makers in protecting voter privacy.

Candidates, parties, lobby groups and data‐mining firms have violated the privacy norms of many citizens in all four countries. Political parties themselves face relatively few restrictions, and have developed a wide variety of largely voluntary website privacy policies that rarely extend to the use of voter datasets. There is great variety in the forms of public policy oversight: in Australia the parties are exempt from oversight; in Canada and the United Kingdom policy oversight is developing and preventative; in the United States party behavior is regulated by decentralized government agencies in an ad hoc manner. Moreover, country-specific voter data, analytical tools, and consulting expertise increasingly moves across borders.

The study assesses the current state of the art of voter data mining, offers a history of the political data‐mining industry, and compare the capacity of regulatory bodies in these countries to protect the privacy of voters.

Keywords: privacy practice, political parties, Australia, Canada, USA, UK, voter privacy protection, political data-mining, privacy

Suggested Citation

Howard, Philip N. and Kreiss, Daniel, Political Parties & Voter Privacy: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States in Comparative Perspective (2009). Howard, Philip N., and Daniel Kreiss. 2009. Political Parties & Voter Privacy: Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States in Comparative Perspective. World Information Access Project Working Paper #2009.1. Seattle: University of Washington., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2595120 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595120

Philip N. Howard (Contact Author)

University of Washington - Department of Communication ( email )

Seattle, WA 98195
United States
2062216532 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.philhoward.org

University of Washington - Henry. M. Jackson School of International Studies ( email )

Seattle, WA
United States

University of Washington - The Information School ( email )

Box 353350
Seattle, WA 98195
United States

University of Oxford - Oxford Internet Institute ( email )

1 St. Giles
University of Oxford
Oxford OX1 3PG Oxfordshire, Oxfordshire OX1 3JS
United Kingdom

University of Oxford - Oxford Internet Institute ( email )

1 St. Giles
University of Oxford
Oxford OX1 3PG Oxfordshire, Oxfordshire OX1 3JS
United Kingdom

Daniel Kreiss

Stanford University ( email )

Stanford, CA 94305
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
396
Abstract Views
1,730
Rank
136,761
PlumX Metrics