DOCSLIB.ORG

Global Standards for Ethical Identity Management in Contemporary Liberal Democratic States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Global Standards for Ethical Identity Management in Contemporary Liberal Democratic States SECURITY and PRIVACY SECURITY and PRIVACY Global Standards for Ethical Identity Management in Contemporary Liberal Democratic States John Kleinig • Peter Mameli • Seumas Miller • Douglas Salane Adina Schwartz THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY E PRESS Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics An Australian Research Council Funded Special Research Centre Practical Ethics and Public Policy Monograph 2 Series Editor: Michael J. Selgelid E PRESS Published by ANU E Press The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at http://epress.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Security and privacy : global standards for ethical identity management in contemporary liberal democratic states / John Kleinig ... [et al.] ISBN: 9781921862571 (pbk.) 9781921862588 (ebook) Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Subjects: Terrorism--Moral and ethical aspects. Transnational crime--Moral and ethical aspects. Terrorism--Political aspects. Transnational crime--Political aspects. Other Authors/Contributors: Kleinig, John, 1942- Dewey Number: 363.325 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU E Press Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2011 ANU E Press Contents Preface . vii Contributors . ix Acknowledgments . xi I . Crime Scenes and the Terroir of Terror . 1 II . Security and the Challenge to Liberal Values . 7 III . The Blessing and Bane of the Liberal Democratic Tradition . 11 IV . Divergent Formalities . 19 V . When the Rubber Hits the Road . 77 VI . Securitization Technologies . 89 VII . Surveillance Technologies and Economies . 129 VIII . The Underlying Values and their Alignment . 151 IX . The Complexities of Oversight and Accountability . 225 X . Recommendations . 241 Appendix: Security and Privacy Institutional Arrangements: Australia and India . 247 References . 263 v Preface This study is principally concerned with the ethical dimensions of identity management technology – electronic surveillance, the mining of personal data, and profiling – in the context of transnational crime and global terrorism. The ethical challenge at the heart of this study is to establish an acceptable and sustainable equilibrium between two central moral values in contemporary liberal democracies, namely, security and privacy. Both values are essential to individual liberty but they come into conflict in times when civil order is threatened, as has been the case from late in the twentieth century, with the advent of global terrorism and transnational crime. We seek to articulate legally sustainable, politically possible and technologically feasible global ethical standards1 for identity management technology and policies in liberal democracies in the contemporary global security context. Although the standards in question are to be understood as global ethical standards potentially to be adopted not only by the United States (US) but also by the European Union (EU), India, Australasia and other contemporary liberal democratic states, we take as our primary focus the tensions that have arisen between the US and the EU. This tension provides a good example of the kinds of challenges involved in developing global standards. It is exemplified by the 2006 disclosure concerning the US government’s access to SWIFT transactions and the controversy that has followed it, as well as the earlier and ongoing controversy over the 2004 US–EU Passenger Names Records (PNR) agreement. It also makes itself known in the ongoing debate over national identity cards. The first two conflicts make it clear that, however difficult it may be to develop global standards for the management of personal data, such standards are needed and that every effort should be made to develop them or at least to implement procedures for addressing conflicts among them. Naturally, authoritarian states do not share the liberal values underlying this project – values such as individual autonomy and privacy. Nevertheless, to the extent that such authoritarian states are evolving or are likely to evolve toward some form of liberal democracy, the results of this study will also be relevant to these states. Our purpose is to articulate standards and institutional initiatives that are sufficiently specific to determine – or at least substantially constrain – the requisite detailed security and privacy policies and prescriptions in national as well as international and transnational jurisdictions. 1 Gijs de Vries, “Terrorism, Islam and Democracy”, EurActiv.com, March 4, 2005, at: http://www.euractiv. com/en/security/gijs-vries-terrorism-islam-democracy/article-136245. vii Security and Privacy The project distinguishes itself from other work in this field in two major respects. Firstly, the multi-disciplinary team of experts brought together for this project has enabled the integration of: (a) ethical principles, (b) national and international legal considerations, (c) effective law enforcement practices, (d) oversight and accountability concerns and (e) knowledge of existing and emerging technology, such as database mining and knowledge discovery technology, in the development of a framework of determinate and feasible ethical standards for identity management technology in the global security context. Secondly, the study has drawn on an international team of experts and focuses on common international standards and solutions, as befits the trans-jurisdictional and transnational nature of the problems to be addressed. Specifically, the project involves not only US personnel and institutions but also EU, Indian, and Australasian expertise. viii Contributors John Kleinig is Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Criminal Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and teaches in the PhD Programs in Philosophy and Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is also Professorial Fellow in Criminal Justice Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Canberra. Peter Mameli is Associate Professor in the Department of Public Management at John College of Criminal Justice and is part of the PhD Program in Criminal Justice at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Seumas Miller is Foundation Director for the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (an Australian Research Council Special Research Centre) at the Australian National University and Charles Sturt University, and a senior research fellow in the Centre for Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology, Netherlands. Douglas Salane is Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science and in the graduate program in Forensic Computing at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He is also Director of the Center for Cybercrime Studies. Adina Schwartz is Professor of Law in the Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Masters Program in Forensic Computing at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She is also the Assistant Director of the Center for Cybercrime Studies. ix Acknowledgments The initial impetus for this study was a US National Science Foundation grant (#0619226) awarded in 2006 to several researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, some of whom were also associated with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Canberra. We are particularly appreciative of the support of John Jay College and CAPPE, and for the assistance at different stages of this project of Nick Evans, Jamie Levy, Richard Lovely, Richard Lucas, Vincent Maldonado and Vincenzo Sainato. Richard Lucas was particularly helpful in reviewing and updating the technical data. Until his untimely death, one of our original grant members, Brian O’Connell, from Central Connecticut State University, brought to the early stages of this project not only his enthusiasm but also his combined expertise in philosophy, law, and computing. Our loss, along with that of others, was great. In preparing this material for publication, we are grateful for the extensive comments of two reviewers, including Leslie Francis of the University of Utah. James Spence provided valuable editorial assistance. During the course of this study, several items have been prepared for other venues, including: John Kleinig “Humiliation, Degradation, and Moral Capacity: A Response to Hörnle and Kremnitzer”, Israel Law Review 44; and John Kleinig, “Liberty and Security in an Era of Terrorism”, in Criminologists on Terrorism and Homeland Security, ed. Brian Forst, Jack Greene & James Lynch (NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011), ch. 15. Acknowledgment is also made of permission to use material first published in Peter Mameli, “Tracking the Beast: Techno-Ethics Boards and Government Surveillance Programs”, Critical Issues in Justice and Politics, 1, no. 1 (2008): 31–56, available at: http://www.suu.edu/hss/polscj/CIJP.htm. Professor Mameli's research benefitted from time spent as a visiting scholar at the National Policing Improvement Agency, Bramshill, in the United Kingdom during 2006. In addition, elements of his work were originally presented at the 2006 “Soft Law, Soft Regulation?” conference of Anglia Ruskin University. We also acknowledge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Australian Political Writings 2009-10
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament BIBLIOGRAPHY www.aph.gov.au/library Selected Australian political writings 2009‐10 Contents Biographies ............................................................................................................................. 2 Elections, electorate boundaries and electoral systems ......................................................... 3 Federalism .............................................................................................................................. 6 Human rights ........................................................................................................................... 6 Liberalism and neoliberalism .................................................................................................. 6 Members of Parliament and their staff .................................................................................... 7 Parliamentary issues ............................................................................................................... 7 Party politics .......................................................................................................................... 13 Party politics- Australian Greens ........................................................................................... 14 Party politics- Australian Labor Party .................................................................................... 14 Party politics-
    [Show full text]
  • Australia 2019
    Australia Free 77 100 A Obstacles to Access 23 25 B Limits on Content 29 35 C Violations of User Rights 25 40 Last Year's Score & Status 79 100 Free Overview Internet freedom in Australia declined during the coverage period. The country’s information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure is well developed, and prices for connections are low, ensuring that much of the population enjoys access to the internet. However, a number of website restrictions, such as those related to online piracy or “abhorrent” content, limit the content available to users. The March 2019 terrorist attack on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, prompted internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites and the government subsequently introduced a new law that criminalized the failure to delete “abhorrent” content. Other legal changes—including court decisions expanding the country’s punitive defamation standards, an injunction silencing digital media coverage of a high-profile trial, and a problematic law that undermines encryption—shrunk the space for free online expression in Australia. Finally, an escalating series of cyberattacks sponsored by China profoundly challenged the security of Australia’s digital sphere. Australia is a democracy with a strong record of advancing and protecting political rights and civil liberties. Recent challenges to these freedoms have included the threat of foreign political influence, harsh policies toward asylum seekers, and ongoing disparities faced by indigenous Australians. Key Developments June 1, 2018 – May 31, 2019 After the March 2019 Christchurch attack, in which an Australian man who had espoused white supremacist views allegedly killed 51 people at two New Zealand mosques, ISPs acted independently to block access to more than 40 websites that hosted the attacker’s live-streamed video of his crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy and Data Protection in Australia: a Critical Overview (Extended Abstract)
    Privacy and Data Protection in Australia: a Critical overview (extended abstract) David Watts1, Pompeu Casanovas2,3 1 La Trobe Law School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia 2 UAB Institute of Law and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain Abstract. This extended abstract describes the regulation of privacy under Aus- tralian laws and policies. In the CRC D2D programme, we will develop a strategy to model legal requirements in a situation that is far from clear. Law enforcement agencies are facing big floods of data to be acquired, stored, assessed and used. We will propose in the final paper a linked data regulatory model to organise and set the legal and policy requirements to model privacy in this unstructured con- text. Keywords: Australian privacy law, legal requirements, privacy modelling 1 Introduction Australia has a federal system of government that embodies a number of the structural elements of the US Constitutional system but retains a Constitutional monarchy. It con- sists of a national government (the Commonwealth), six state governments (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia) as well as two Territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory). Under this system, specific Constitutional powers are conferred on the Common- wealth. Any other powers not specifically conferred on the Commonwealth are retained by the States (and, to a lesser extent, the Territories). There is no general law right to privacy in Australia. Although Australia is a signa- tory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the international law right to privacy conferred under Article 17 of the ICCPR has not been enacted into Australia’s domestic law.
    [Show full text]
  • Legitimacy in the New Regulatory State
    LEGITIMACY IN THE NEW REGULATORY STATE KAREN LEE A THESIS IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FACULTY OF LAW MARCH 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... I PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ARISING FROM THE WRITING OF THE THESIS .. III GLOSSARY AND TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................. IV CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 I JUSTIFICATION FOR RESEARCH AND ITS APPROACH .......................................... 4 A THE NEED FOR EMPIRICAL STUDY OF INDUSTRY RULE-MAKING ....................... 4 B PART 6 RULE-MAKING ....................................................................................... 7 1 THE COMMUNICATIONS ALLIANCE ................................................................ 8 2 CONSUMER CODES ....................................................................................... 10 C PROCEDURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY, RESPONSIVENESS AND THEIR CRITERIA ......................................................................................................... 11 II TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................................ 15 A CONSUMER AND PUBLIC INTERESTS................................................................. 15 1 CONSUMER INTEREST .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Burdon Thesis
    THE CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL COMPATIBILITY OF DATA BREACH NOTIFICATION AND INFORMATION PRIVACY LAWS Mark Burdon M.Sc. (Econ) Public Policy (Lon), LLB (Hons) (London South Bank University, UK) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD by publications Faculty of Law Queensland University of Technology 2011 Keywords Data Breach Notification Law – Information Privacy Law – Data Protection – Contextualisation - Information Security Law ii Abstract Mandatory data breach notification laws are a novel and potentially important legal instrument regarding organisational protection of personal information. These laws require organisations that have suffered a data breach involving personal information to notify those persons that may be affected, and potentially government authorities, about the breach. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has proposed the creation of a mandatory data breach notification scheme, implemented via amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). However, the conceptual differences between data breach notification law and information privacy law are such that it is questionable whether a data breach notification scheme can be solely implemented via an information privacy law. Accordingly, this thesis by publications investigated, through six journal articles, the extent to which data breach notification law was conceptually and operationally compatible with information privacy law. The assessment of compatibility began with the identification of key issues related to data breach notification law. The first article, Stakeholder Perspectives Regarding the Mandatory Notification of Australian Data Breaches started this stage of the research which concluded in the second article, The Mandatory Notification of Data Breaches: Issues Arising for Australian and EU Legal Developments (‘Mandatory Notification‘). A key issue that emerged was whether data breach notification was itself an information privacy issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Secrecy Laws
    Review of Secrecy Laws ISSUES PAPER You are invited to provide a submission or comment on this Issues Paper ISSUES PAPER 34 December 2008 This Issues Paper reflects the law as at 1 November 2008. © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN-978-0-9804153-4-6 Commission Reference: IP 34 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Ligare Making a submission Any public contribution to an inquiry is called a submission and these are actively sought by the ALRC from a broad cross-section of the community, as well as those with a special interest in the particular inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunications Act 1997
    Telecommunications Act 1997 Act No. 47 of 1997 as amended This compilation was prepared on 26 November 2008 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 117 of 2008 [Note: Subsections 531F(1) and (2) and paragraphs 531G(2)(e) and (3A)(e) cease to have effect on 27 May 2009, see subsections 531F(3), 531G(3) and (3B)] The text of any of those amendments not in force on that date is appended in the Notes section The operation of amendments that have been incorporated may be affected by application provisions that are set out in the Notes section Prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra Contents Part 1—Introduction 1 1 Short title [see Note 1].......................................................................1 2 Commencement [see Note 1].............................................................1 3 Objects...............................................................................................1 4 Regulatory policy ..............................................................................3 5 Simplified outline ..............................................................................3 6 Main index.........................................................................................7 7 Definitions.........................................................................................8 8 Crown to be bound ..........................................................................18 9 Extra-territorial application .............................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF Read More
    This Issues Paper reflects the law as at 30 November 2006 © Commonwealth of Australia 2006 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN 0-9758213-7-7 Commission Reference: IP 32 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] ALRC homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Canprint Communications Pty Ltd Making a submission Any public contribution to an inquiry is called a submission and these are actively sought by the ALRC from a broad cross-section of the community, as well as those with a special interest in the inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature Redacted Siqnature Redacted
    The Print that Binds: Local Journalism, Civic Life and the Public Sphere by Sara Rafsky B.A. Spanish, Georgetown University, 2007 SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES/WRITING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY JUNE 2018 @2018 Sara Rafsky. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Signature of Author: Department of Comparatib-tIedia Studies May 11, 2018 Certified by: Signature redacted William Uricchio Professor of Comparative Media Studies I I j Ttesis Supervisor Accepted by: Siqnature redacted Heather Hendershot Professor of Comparative Media Studies Director of Graduate Studies MAS ACHUSES INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MAY 3 0 2018 LIBRARIES ARCHIVES The Print that Binds: Local Journalism, Civic Life and the Public Sphere by Sara Rafsky Submitted to the Department of Comparative Media Studies/ Writing on May 11, 2018 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Comparative Media Studies Abstract In the current political climate in the United States, much attention has been paid to the role of the press in our increasingly polarized society and to what extent it exacerbates or mends divisions. While the majority of that analysis is focused on national politics and news outlets, the role of local media and the crucial role it plays in civic life has been often neglected in the wider debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Privacy Act 1993
    NZLC REPORT 123 E31(123) NovemberJune 2011, 2010, Wellington, Wellington, New New Zealand Zealand | | REPORT REPORT 123 119 REVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 REVIEW OF THE LAW OF PRIVACY STAGE 4 LAW COMMISSION E31 (123) June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand | REPORT 123 REVIEW OF THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 REVIEW OF THE LAW OF PRIVACY STAGE 4 The Law Commission is an independent, publicly funded, central advisory body established by statute to undertake the systematic review, reform and development of the law of New Zealand. Its purpose is to help achieve law that is just, principled, and accessible, and that reflects the heritage and aspirations of the peoples of New Zealand. The Commissioners are: Honourable Sir Grant Hammond KNZM – President Dr Warren Young – Deputy President Emeritus Professor John Burrows QC George Tanner QC Professor Geoff McLay The General Manager of the Law Commission is Brigid Corcoran The office of the Law Commission is at Level 19, HP Tower, 171 Featherston Street, Wellington Postal address: PO Box 2590, Wellington 6140, New Zealand Document Exchange Number: sp 23534 Telephone: (04) 473-3453, Facsimile: (04) 471-0959 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.lawcom.govt.nz National Library of New Zealand Cataloguing-in-Publication Data New Zealand. Law Commission. Review of the Privacy Act 1993 : review of the law of privacy, stage 4. (Law Commission report ; 123) ISBN 978-1-877569-14-2 (pbk.)—ISBN 978-1-877569-23-4 (internet) 1. New Zealand. Privacy Act 1993. 2. Privacy, Right of—New Zealand. I. Title. II. Series: New Zealand. Law Commission. Report ; no.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia
    Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia REPORT REPORT 112 December 2009 This Report reflects the law as at 11 November 2009 © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in whole or part, subject to acknowledgement of the source, for your personal, non- commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Requests for further authorisation should be directed by letter to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Copyright Law Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or electronically via www.ag.gov.au/cca. ISBN- 978-0-9807194-0-6 Commission Reference: ALRC Report 112 The Australian Law Reform Commission was established on 1 January 1975 by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 (Cth) and reconstituted by the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth). The office of the ALRC is at Level 25, 135 King Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. All ALRC publications can be made available in a range of accessible formats for people with disabilities. If you require assistance, please contact the ALRC. Telephone: within Australia (02) 8238 6333 International +61 2 8238 6333 TTY: (02) 8238 6379 Facsimile: within Australia (02) 8238 6363 International +61 2 8238 6363 E-mail: [email protected] Homepage: www.alrc.gov.au Printed by Ligare The Hon Robert McClelland MP Attorney-General of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 11 December 2009 Dear Attorney-General Review of Secrecy Laws On 5 August 2008, you issued terms of reference for the ALRC to undertake a comprehensive review of secrecy laws and related issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Pulitzer Prize Winners and Finalists
    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
    [Show full text]