Google called for an \u201cenabling regulatory environment\u201d for AI and warned of compliance costs that come with privacy regulation, arguing that it may create a \u201ccompliance moat\u201d benefiting large incumbents but stifling smaller entities \u2014 a laughable argument coming from Google given its monopolistic behaviour<\/a>. Amazon argued that privacy regulations shouldn\u2019t encroach on its ability to do targeted advertising.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\t\tRelated Article Block Placeholder<\/p>\n \t\t\tArticle ID: 1214514\n\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t Such a stance is wildly out of step with community expectations on both privacy and AI. More than four in five Australians want the government to do more<\/a> to protect their privacy. One study<\/a> found Australians are less optimistic about AI than any other country, with 78% concerned about negative outcomes, while another found 83% think companies should have to seek consent<\/a> before using personal information to train AI models.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s clear that Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind isn\u2019t buying what Meta is selling. In response to the company\u2019s suggestion that her position should give \u201cdue regard to innovation and economic interests\u201d, Kind retorted<\/a> that her role is \u201cto act in the public interest, not in the economic interests of tech companies\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Unfortunately, this doesn\u2019t reflect Australia\u2019s long-held approach to privacy as an economic bargaining chip. The most recent attempt to reform the nation\u2019s woefully outdated Privacy Act came from a desire to enhance competition objectives<\/a>. That is, off the back of the ACCC\u2019s Digital Platforms Inquiry, a core premise of which framed privacy law as important because it encourages competition and innovation.\u00a0<\/p>\n Many privacy advocates are being forced to capitulate to an economic cost-benefit analysis of potential privacy protections. Such a process says nothing of the intrinsic value of privacy as a human right. Nor does it take seriously the individual and collective harm and power imbalance caused by data-extractive business models. Instead, it frames privacy in market terms where its value is only recognised if the line on a profit graph marches relentlessly up. When we argue on these terms, we lose.\u00a0<\/p>\n The economic factors aren\u2019t irrelevant, but this equation is failing us. If the pathway to ruthless growth relies upon uninhibited data accumulation and commodification, people\u2019s right to privacy becomes collateral damage. Meaningful privacy law should throw a spanner in the business models of these companies in favour of the public interest. Otherwise, what\u2019s the point?\u00a0<\/p>\n Other giants like Bunnings and Woolworths also took issue with privacy protections deemed disruptive. Woolworths noted privacy reform \u201ccould pose unnecessary challenges in how we serve our customers\u201d. This is unsurprising, given that supermarkets are a hotbed for surveillance and control<\/a>. Meanwhile Bunnings called for regulation that would enable it to use facial-recognition technology, reiterating its disagreement with the Privacy Commissioner that it breached Australians\u2019 privacy by using facial recognition<\/a> in its stores.<\/p>\n \n\t\tRelated Article Block Placeholder<\/p>\n \t\t\tArticle ID: 1215385\n\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t Notably, both Woolworths and Bunnings have previously come under fire for using a privacy-invasive tool that claims to predict crime before it happens<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s the privacy theatre. Many of these companies take pains to express \u2014 in their submissions and in general \u2014 how they care very much about privacy, actually. But just as it is telling what they argue against, what they support is also revealing. Make no mistake, they aren\u2019t readily acceding to privacy reform that would substantially chip away at their power or profit.\u00a0<\/p>\n One example is the utter co-option of the notice-consent model. The idea goes that with enough information, people can make informed choices about their data. This doesn\u2019t work: people don\u2019t read privacy policies, and even if they did, they don\u2019t have any real bargaining power. Companies also employ dark patterns<\/a> to manipulate their users. This paradigm has led to unending terms, conditions and cookie banners that are both annoying and do little to improve data practices. <\/p>\n So when the likes of Meta and Amazon reiterate a commitment to transparency to empower their users \u2014 spare us.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t![\"Google](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Fact-checking_1680x945-1.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t![\"Why](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/cursor.jpg\")
\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n