LAWS6356 Chap.6 New Technologies and State Power
New Technologies and State Power
Emerging victimisation can cross platforms, jurisdictions and conventional legal categories. This chapter joins image-based abuse, deepfakes, anti-LGBTIQ violence and abuse of state power through a response tree.
It separates evidence preservation, immediate safety, jurisdiction, content removal, criminal or civil law, regulation and support, while asking whether the responding institution may itself be implicated in the original harm. Define conduct before choosing an offence. For synthetic or manipulated imagery, identify creation, identification, consent, distribution, repetition, threats and audience.
The creator, first uploader, repeat sharers and hosting service may hold different knowledge and control. Their location can also place law, investigation and enforcement in different jurisdictions. Immediate removal and evidence preservation may pull in opposite directions. A safe process should retain necessary metadata and content without requiring public availability or repeated viewing.
The affected person needs clear routes to removal, safety and support while investigators or regulators preserve only what their lawful task requires. Responsibility should be allocated rather than promised through a single institution. Platforms can restrict circulation and preserve records under valid process. Regulators can set standards and supervise compliance. Police and prosecutors investigate criminal conduct.
Civil courts may restrain publication or provide another remedy. Support services respond to safety and recovery. Coordination should reduce repeated disclosure and failed referrals. Differentiated victimisation directs attention to context. Formal equality may not answer barriers created by prior hostility, distrust or surveillance.
Describe the institutional mechanism rather than treating vulnerability as a fixed personal trait. When state power or historical failure is implicated, independence, records access, witness protection and public reporting become necessary safeguards. New criminalisation may close a genuine gap, but it should not substitute for implementation.
Test existing law first, define any new conduct and fault precisely, preserve notice and review, and coordinate non-criminal routes. The strongest conclusion distinguishes the problem requiring legislation from the problems requiring platform, regulatory or service reform. A response matrix can keep the analysis disciplined.
Put immediate protection, evidence, removal, accountability and recovery on separate rows, then assign the actor, authority and jurisdiction for each. Any blank cell is a reform gap; any crowded cell may indicate duplicated responsibility. This method also exposes where urgency could displace privacy, notice or review unless the safeguard is built into the route.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Differentiated effects of crime
- 02
Anti-LGBTIQ violence and institutional failure
- 03
Image-based abuse and deepfakes
- 04
Evidence preservation and rapid removal
- 05
Platform, regulator and justice responsibilities
- 06
Independent response to state power
Worked example · free
Map a synthetic-image response
- +1Record safe evidence of URLs, dates and available metadata.
- +1Identify creation, distribution, identification, threats and persistence.
- +1Prioritise safety, removal and support while preserving necessary evidence.
- +1Map criminal, civil, regulatory and platform routes by actor and jurisdiction.
- +1Add notice, reasons, review and privacy protection.
Key terms
- Image-Based Abuse
- Image-based abuse involves non-consensual creation, distribution or threatened distribution of intimate visual material.
- Deepfake
- A deepfake is synthetic or manipulated media designed to create a convincing false depiction.
- Platform Governance
- Platform governance is the system of rules, detection, removal, preservation and review used by an online service.
- Evidence Preservation
- Evidence preservation retains reliable information needed for investigation or review while limiting unnecessary exposure.
- Independent Inquiry
- An independent inquiry examines conduct without control by an institution materially implicated in the alleged failure.
New Technologies and State Power FAQ
Does every new technology need a new offence?
Not necessarily. First test whether existing law covers the conduct and why response fails. The gap may concern jurisdiction, evidence, platform cooperation, removal, support or enforcement capacity. New criminalisation should define conduct and fault precisely and coordinate non-criminal remedies.
Why can removal and evidence preservation conflict?
A person may need harmful material removed quickly, while investigation requires reliable records. A sound process preserves necessary metadata and content securely without requiring public availability or repeated viewing. Responsibilities should be allocated among platforms, regulators and investigators.
What changes when state power is involved?
The ordinary responder may be implicated in the harm, record failure or concealment. Independence, records access, witness protection and public reporting become substantive safeguards. The analysis should provide an external route rather than returning every complaint to the same institution.
Assessment move
Draw the emerging-harm tree from memory: harm, evidence, jurisdiction, safety, legal route, removal and support. Apply it to one synthetic-media problem and one historical state-failure problem. Identify the actor controlling each response and the safeguard attached to rapid power. Avoid graphic examples; the institutional chain carries the examinable analysis.
Working through New Technologies and State Power in LAWS6356? Sia is AskSia’s AI Law tutor — ask any LAWS6356 New Technologies and State Power question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how LAWS6356 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
