Roger Clarke's Web-Site © Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd,  1995-2024
HOME	eBusiness	Information Infrastructure	Dataveillance & Privacy	Identity Matters	Other Topics
What's New		Waltzing Matilda	Advanced Site-Search

A Brief Overview of Technology/ical {Impact} Assessment

Draft of 14 January 2025
In preparation for a presentation on 7 February 2025 to the Program on
Australia India Joint Impact Assessment of #Critical Technologies for Peace and Stability
Primarily adapted extracts from prior works at rogerclarke.com

Roger Clarke **

© Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 2025

This document is at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/TIAN.html
The accompanying slide-set is at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/TIAN.pdf

Abstract

Technology Assessment is process whereby the consequences of technologies are examined, in order to provide guidance to policy-makers. This document first provides historical background and a working definition. It then distinguishes TA from other forms of assessment, and offers a preliminary discussion of methods to support effective TA.

Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. A Brief Retrospective on Technology Assessment
• 3. A Definition of Technology Assessment
• 4. A Categorisation of Assessment Approaches
• 5. Methods to support TA/TIA
• Appendix 1: Definitions of Technology Assessment
• Appendix 2: Further Detail on the Notion of Technology Assessment
• Appendix 3: Futures Studies / Research into Alternative Futures
• Reference List
• Source Documents

1. Introduction

I was invited to provide a short, introductory presentation on technology impact assessment to a virtual roundtable of the Australia India Cyber and Critical Technologies Partnership. After scanning the Project Brief and Reddy & Naik's 'A Framework for Governing Emerging Technologies' (2025), my next step was to remind myself of the considerable amount of prior work I've done on many forms of assessment during the last few decades. I then complemented that with insights from a few more recent sources, and summarised what I see as the current position.

A Note on Terminology: The term Technology Assessment (TA) has been in use since the mid-1960s. The more descriptive term Technology (Technological) Impact Assessment (TIA) has been less common until recently(e.g. Wikipedia redirects TIA to TA), but is applied in the work of the Australia India Cyber and Critical Technologies Partnership. Currently, I see no material difference in meaning between the two terms.

2. A Brief Retrospective on Technology Assessment

Since the mid-twentieth century, as organisations and nations have been confronted by rapid technologically-supported and -driven development, they have experimented with various techniques to identify, understand and evaluate the opportunities and threats. The notion and techniques of Technology Assessment emerged with the US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 1972-1995, and European OTAs from the early-to-mid 1980s. An early treatment of the Office's methods is in OTA (1977). See also Porter et al. (1980). A number of European countries created similar agencies from the 1980s onwards. Generally, OTAs do not have the power to ensure that the outcomes of TAs are acted upon. They operate as services to their relevant government and/or parliament.

TA is concerned with the evaluation of potential impacts and implications of a particular technical capability (OTA 1977, Garcia 1991, CRS 2020). The approach inherently reflects the needs of all parties involved, or at least many of them, and it inherently reflects values across all of social, economic, politic and environmental dimensions.

The establishment of the US OTA followed a period during which Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' had alerted the public to environmental impacts (in that case, to the insecticidal impacts of DDT) and Ralph Nader's 'Unsafe at Any Speed' had sounded the alarm bells about the design of cars. The US OTA was an organ of that nation's parliament, and reported to a Committee of Congress. During the 1990s, US politics changed. Endeavours to balance apparent economic progress against its consequences gave way to economic dominance over social goals; policy came to be defined substantially in terms of party-politics; corporate stategies became afflicted with short-termism; and corporations' growth in size, in trans-nationalism and in power resulted in government and regulation being downgraded to governance and 'self-regulation'. Considerable progress had been made with TA in the area of consequences for the physical environment; but the change in priorities resulted in the debasement of Environmental Impact Assessment to mere Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). and the disestablishment of OTA during the Reagan Administration, in 1995. In contrast, many European countries have sustained their OTAs long-term.

(This section comprises adapted extracts from Clarke 2009, Clarke 2024 and Clarke & Michael 2024).

3. A Working Definition of Technology Assessment

The following provides a suitable basis for discussion (Banta 2009):

"[TA is] a form of policy research that examines short- and long-term consequences (for example, societal, economic, ethical, legal) of the application of technology ... to provide policy makers with information on policy alternatives"

Several further definitions that offer some value are in Appendix 1. If 'consequences' and 'impacts' are treated as synonyms, TA and TIA are equivalent terms.

Adopting a broad conception of TA/TIA, the following aspects are commonly encompassed, generally in something like the sequence shown:

• The Technology
• The Contexts within the Assessment's Scope
• Objectives, Values and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms
• Modus Operandi (see immediately below)
• Features of the Technology that give rise to Opportunities and Threats
• Stakeholders, Stakeholder Segments, and Proxies for Them
• Their Values and Interests
• Impacts, Implications and Risks
• Policy Alternatives
• Design for Outcome Equity, Harm Avoidance, Harm Mitigation

A TA/TIA may be performed in a number of different modes:

• An Authoritative approach, with outreach or consultation
  By this is meant a study performed by a team that claims competencies in TA methods. Input from relevant parties may be welcomed during the earlier stages (e.g. by means of a call for submissions on the technology's features, opportunities and threats) and/or after a draft position has been reached (seeking feedback on the draft)
• A Coordinative / Collaborative approach, with participation
  In this case, the team is open-ended, or open at all stages to input from any interested party, particularly during the formative phases and again once a draft is in place
• A Competitive/Dialectic process, of the nature of debate or dialogue
  This follows an argument / counter-argument or thesis / antithesis / synthesis approach, of the nature of a symposium in its original sense. It seeks the emergence of consensus or compromise, with the possibility of falling back to the publication of evidence and reasoned argument supporting two or more alternative interpretations and sets of policy proposals

A somewhat fuller set of notes on the notion of TA is in Appendix 2.

The term TIA is not formally defined in the Project Concept Brief, although some its dimensions are implied. Reddy & Naik (2025) addresses the broader topic of an 'emerging technology governance framework'. This extends beyond the assessment process, also encompassing aspects of the organisational infrastructure supporting it and the meta-language enabling it, including participating organisations, values, objectives and priorities among them, protocols for inter-organisational activities, and terminology.

4. Alternative Scope Definitions of for Assessments

Many different kinds of assessments are practised. It is useful to identify key examples, and compare and contrast them with TA/TIA. The following kinds are usefully distinguished:

• Narrow Focus on Regulatory / Legal / Statutory Compliance
  These are concerned only with a limited form of impact on a particular organisation should it fail to achieve compliance. It has limited relevance to TA/TIA
• Focus on the Impacts of an Action or Intervention
  The general notion of Impact Assessment is defined by International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) as "the identification of future consequences of a current or proposed action". Common examples of such actions include a new ICT-based system, an adapted or new feature of an ICT-based system; a changed law, regulation or code; and changed institutional infrastructure and/or business processes. One or more technologies are commonly involved, but are not the primary focus
• Focus on the Impacts on Interests of the Sponsor of an Action or Intervention
  A large majority of the research conducted in Business Schools is conducted from the perspective of the organisation that is investing in the measure under study. Terms such as Business Case, Discounted Cash Flow Analysis and internal Cost/Benefit Analysis are commonly encountered in this context. Again, technology is usually involved, but is secondary
• Focus on the Impacts on Interests of one of more other Stakeholders
  In response to the narrowness of such evaluations, techniques have arisen with such titles as Environmental Impact Assessment, Privacy Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment. Technology may be an important and even driving element, but far from the main concern of the activity
• Focus on Risk to a Particular Stakeholder
  Whereas the previous forms are concerned with likely direct impacts, and possibly indirect implications, this category is concerned with contingencies. The now highly-standardised and widely-implemented Risk Assessment business process is concerned with the interests of a single organisation, in most cases the sponsor of the intervention, and considers the interests of other stakeholders only as constraints on the achievement of the primary stakeholder's objectives. A specialised form in the cybersecurity context is Threat/Risk Assessment (TRA)
• Focus on Risks to Stakeholders Generally
  This category is also concerned with contingent risks rather than impacts or implications, but does not limit its vision to the same extent as organisational risk assessment processes. To date, Multi-Stakeholder Risk Assessment remains underdeveloped and under-utilised (Clarke & Michael 2024)
• Focus on Impacts, Implications and Risks Arising from a Technology
  Rather than being limited to a particular intervention into a particular context, this category relates to a Technology that may be applied in many Actions or as part of many Interventions, each of which may have many Stakeholders, Values and Value-Sets in play. Technology Assessment (TA) or Technological Impact Assessment (TIA) is a much broader notion than any of the previous categories. It focus is on a technology, and it involves many contexts, and multiple perspectives, across multiple dimensions of social, economic, politic and environmental impacts

5. Methods to support TA/TIA

The previous section makes clear that TA/TIA has the broadest scope of all kinds of assessment. As a result, care is needed with in relation to the policy proposals that arising from the process. For example:

• Policy proposals need to have application to a wide variety of domains of use;
• Policy proposals need to be expressed in sufficiently abstract terms to apply to the uses of the technology generally; but they also need to avoid accidentally creating difficulties in particular application domains. The meta-principle of 'technology neutrality' seems attractive. On the other hand, energy-production processes from each of coal, gas, sunshine, wind, tides, methane, hydrogen, fission and fusion need to be subjected to protective measures that are specifically relevant to those particular materials and processes. Policy expressed as principles that are abstract enough to apply to all of those forms is likely to be so vague as to deliver very little protection;
• Policy proposals need to enable, facilitate and support, but also regulate;
• Policy proposals need to nurture innovation during the early life of a new technology, but to ensure progressive strengthening of protections in step with the technology's deployment;
• Policy proposals need to reflect the interests of a very wide range of stakeholders, and of distinctly different sub-sets or segments within each group;
• Policy proposals need to cater not only for anticipated trajectories of innovation, adoption and application but also for what appeared at the time to be low-probability scenarios. They also need to encourage adaptation for unforeseen eventualities;
• Policy proposals need to take account of cultural diversity, and in multiple ways. Value-sets differ between nations based on the extent to where they lie on, for example,. the secular-theocratic and 'authoritarian'-'democratic' dimensions. Value-sets also differ within nations. In some cases the distinction may be regionally-based, and in others associated with religion, ethnicity and/or language.

To address those challenges, TA commonly features:

• Careful definition of the scope of the technology
  In the example used above, each energy-production process is likely to need consideration independently. Some may need to be defined even more narrowly, e.g. based on the nature of the material (brown coal, anthracite), the source of the material (methane, hydrogen), or the technology's architecture (nuclear fission);
• Sufficiently deep understanding of the technology
  This is essential, to ensure that the features relevant to its impacts, implications and risks are identified, and policy analyses are thereby grounded rather than superficial;
• Generic Policy based on principles
  For topical examples, see Clarke (2019b) re AI generally, and (Clarke 2025) re Generative AI in particular;
• Policy Articulation into operational controls through co-regulatory arrangements
  e.g. in the case of AI generally, Clarke (2019c)

The large majority of established research techniques assume that relevant phenomena exhibit reasonable stability, and that they are capable of being observed. In the context of emergent technologies, neither is the case. Observational methods are infeasible, and survey and focus group methods are limited in their applicability. A number of methods exist for conducting 'futures studies', but they are challenging to undertake, and the results are subject to challenge. Appendix 3 provides a brief overview of methods used in research into alternative futures, and which are therefore relevant to TA/TIA.

Appendix 1. Definitions of Technology Assessment

Among the enormous assortment of definitions available in the literature, the following contain value.

From Grunwald (2009):

No consensual, unambiguous and selective definition of TA has yet been provided. ... Technology Assessment (TA) is the most common collective designation of the systematic methods used to scientifically investigate the conditions for and the consequences of technology and technicising and to denote their societal evaluation

From Banta (2009):

A form of policy research that examines short- and long-term consequences (for example, societal, economic, ethical, legal) of the application of technology ... to provide policy makers with information on policy alternatives

From EPTA (2017):

A scientific, interactive and communicative process, which aims to contribute to the formation of public and political opinion on societal aspects of science and technology

From O'Rourke et al. (2020), in the specific context of Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

Health Technology Assessment is a multidisciplinary process that uses explicit methods to determine the value of a health technology at different points in its lifecycle. The purpose is to inform decision-making in order to promote an equitable, efficient, and high-quality health system.

In the HTA context, it appears reasonable to assume that the term 'value' encompasses both benefits and harms, and that multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the technology's features are reflected in the valuation process.

Appendix 2: Further Detail on the Notion of Technology Assessment

TA's scope is generally defined in terms of one or more technologies, viewed as interventions into a particular, existing physical, social and/or economic context. The time-horizon may be short-term / tactical, but is more often long-term / strategic. The broader the scope and the longer the time-horizon, the greater the flexibility needed in the scope definition.

The deliverables from a TA process are generally expected to include information about:

• the technology/ies
• their past and possible future paths of development
• their likely and possible applications
• the range of relevant values that may be impinged upon
• social, political and ethical criteria that may be applied to the assessment from the perspectives of various interest groups
• the potential positive impacts, anticipated impediments, and possible means of overcoming them
• the potential negative impacts, and possible means of preventing and mitigating them
• policy options

The audience is generally defined as a Parliament or a society-at-large.

The purposes of a TA are generally:

• to adopt multiple perspectives rather than reflect the interests of only some interest groups
• to be conducted in an inclusive and open manner
• to be at least somewhat iterative, to assist participants to absorb the implications of the analysis and provide further feedback

It is infeasible for TA to be performed by or for an individual government agency, industry association or major corporation, or even a consortium of such organisations, because this would inevitably result in compromise of the requirements that it reflect multiple perspectives and be conducted openly. The vehicle may be:

• formally constituted or ad hoc
• a single-project task force or a standing organisation
• a contract for the performance of a service

TAs were conducted during the 1990s on such varied topics as biotechnologies, recombinant DNA, atmospheric pollutants including acid rain, environmental impact of chip production, electromagnetic radiation, waste and recycling, 'lie detectors' / polygraphs, databanks, electronic surveillance and intellectual property rights.

Aspects of the TA process are:

• scoping
• information gathering, about:
  • the relevant technology/ies
  • application ideas, pilots, trials and pioneering projects
  • critiques of the technology/ies
  • the political and policy context(s)
• technological impact analysis through literature review, consultations, discussions, delphi rounds, reflection, projection, scenario analysis, etc.
• identification of policy options
• under some circumstances, possibly also 'constructive TA', e.g. experimental design and pilot implementations

Because of the diversity of TA projects, it is challenging to specify a generic method, and instead it is normal for a process to be devised for each particular project.

The US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) operated from 1972 to 1995. A number of European countries created OTA-like organisations during the 1980s, and, unlike the USA, most have sustained them. They report more or less directly to the national parliament, e.g. in France since 1983 (OPECST - Office Parlementaire d'Evaluation des Choix Scientifiques et Technologiques) and in Denmark since 1986 (the Danish Board of Technology). A European Parliamentary Technology Assessment (EPTA) network was formed in 1990, and links a dozen such organisations. The European Parliament has a Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) panel and bureau.

(This Appendix is an adapted extract from Clarke 2014).

Appendix 3: Futures Studies / Research into Alternative Futures

Important research domains are sometimes characterised as embodying 'wicked problems' - a term that invites defeatism. A more constructive approach is to identify the domain's key features. These commonly include emergent phenomena, unstable phenomena, such a high degree of interdependency among elements that sub-setting and simplification of the problem-space is difficult or infeasible, large numbers of stakeholders with diverse perspectives, and value-conflicts.

Many futures research techniques have been formulated. Some techniques are primarily observational and lack the dynamic element. Others are limited to forecasting based on historical trends, and hence are incapable of coping with discontinuities. This section identifies key examples of techniques used in Futures Studies.

Conceptual Research:

• Critical Theory Research
  This is not usually portrayed as a futurist technique. It does, however, directly address the value-conflict challenge, by recognising the effects of power and the tendency of some stakeholders' interests to dominate those of other stakeholders
• Conventional Delphi Studies
  These involve a request to a group of people with assumed expertise in the relevant domain to respond to a series of abstract propositions about the future. In one or more further rounds, the group is asked for responses to their peers' previous thoughts. The approach is capable of delivering some insight into opinions, but its orientation is much less to the development of insight, and much more to the achieval of consensus, whether or not a diversity of opinions exists.
• Visionary Depiction
  This comprises imagined futures, commonly 'utopian' (strongly emphasing 'good' aspects), sometimes 'dystopian' (strongly emphasing 'bad' aspects), and occasionally balanced, ambivalent or intentionally ambiguous. A common feature is the phrasing of speculations as though they were realistic or factual accounts

Quasi-Empirical Research

• Grounded Delphi Studies
  Where the participants begin with a sufficient technical or factual base, the technique can be applied in a more creative manner, seeking insights rather than consensus. Examples could include the more likely innovation and diffusion paths of small modular nuclear reactors, fusion power, quantum computing or space elevators
• Vignettes or Mini-Case-Studies
  These need to be grounded-but-imaginative. An example of an application to the Internet of Things is in Manwaring (2019, pp.149-165)
• Game-based or Role-Playing Studies
  These need to begin with a sufficiently grounded setting, but then invite competition-spurred creativity
• Simulation Modelling
  Examples of this arise in relation to social control aspects of public health, such as in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Clarke 2021)
• Scenario Analysis
  A scenario is "a detailed description of what the future might be like", or "a trajectory of possible, logically connected future events". The description is expressed as a story-line that represents 'an imagined but realistic world'. Scenario Analysis involves the development not of one Scenario, but for a requisitely-rich set of them. The value derives from a combination of the depth of insights achieved within each scenario, together with the diversity among the different scenarios' paths of development (Clarke 2003)

Technology Assessment

• As envisioned from the 1970s onwards, TA can be depicted in various ways. Because it is inherently multi-perspective, it may be most readily seen as an example of Balanced Visionary Depiction.

A Note on Ethics

The discussion above contains no mention of ethics. The notion of ethics, as the term is used in moral philosophy, relates to the body of principles governing right and wrong. It has primary application to judgements about good and evil, usually ex post facto. The abstract and equivocal nature of ethical principles is such that they seldom have sufficient volitional or motivational power to influence actors' behaviour.

TA/TIA, on the other hand, is instrumentalist, seeking to achieve outcomes of a kind that deliver utility while limiting and mitigating harm. Ethical principles accordingly operate at a meta level in comparison with the practice of TA/TIA. They may guide and constrain individual participants, but they seldom playing a decisive role in the process.

(This Appendix comprises adapted extracts from Clarke 2014 from Clarke 2019a and Clarke 2022).

Reference List

Banta D. (2009) 'What is technology assessment?' Int'l J of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25: Supplement 1 (2009) 7--9, at https://www.inbit.gr/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2009-What-is-technology-assessment.pdf

Berleur J. & Drumm J. (Eds.) (1991) 'Information Technology Assessment' Proc. 4th IFIP-TC9 International Conference on Human Choice and Computers, Dublin, July 8-12, 1990, Elsevier Science Publishers (North-Holland), 1991

CRS (2020) 'The Office of Technology Assessment: History, Authorities, Issues, and Options' US Congressional Research Service, Version of 29 April 2020, at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46327/6

EPTA (2017) 'What is Technology Assessment?' European Parliamentary Technology Assessment, 2017, at http://www.eptanetwork.org/about/what-is-ta

Garcia L. (1991) 'The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment' Chapter in Berleur J. & Drumm J. (eds.) 'Information Technology Assessment' North-Holland, 1991, at pp.177-180

Grunwald A. (2009) 'Technology Assessment: Concepts and Methods' Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science 2009, pp.1103-1146, at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444516671500446

Manwaring K. (2019) 'Surfing the Third Wave of Computing: Consumer Contracting with eObjects in Australia' PhD Thesis, UNSW Faculty of Law, November 2019

O'Rourke B., Oortwijn W., Schuller T. & the International Joint Task Group (2020) 'The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration' Int'l J of Technology Assessment in Health Care (2020) 1--4, at https://htasialink.com/index.php/files/13/Journal-Publications/10/Thenewdefinitionofhealthtechnology.pdf

OTA (1977) 'Technology Assessment in Business and Government' Office of Technology Assessment, NTIS order #PB-273164', January 1977, at http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7711_n.html

Porter A.L., Rossini F.A. & Carpenter S.R. (1980) 'A Guidebook for technology assessment and impact analysis' Elsevier, 1980

Reddy B. & Naik S. (2025) 'A Framework for Governing Emerging Technologies' Discussion Document No. 2025-02, The Takshashila Institution, January 2025, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/618a55c4cb03246776b68559/t/6779243ac02ea76b123dc7b4/1735992393905/A+Framework+For+Governing+Emerging+Technologies+-+TDD+-+20250104+-+1.0.pdf

Source Documents

Clarke R. (2003) 'Scenario-Based Research' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, June 2003, at http://www.xamax.com.au/Res/Scenarios.html

Clarke R. (2009) 'Privacy Impact Assessment: Its Origins and Development' Computer Law & Security Review 25, 2 (April 2009) 123-135, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/PIAHist-08.html

Clarke R. (2014) 'Approaches to Impact Assessment' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, January 2014, at http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/IA-1401.html

Clarke R. (2019a) 'Risks Inherent in the Digital Surveillance Economy: A Research Agenda' Journal of Information Technology 34,1 (Mar 2019) 59-80, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/DSE.html

Clarke R. (2019b) 'Principles and Business Processes for Responsible AI' Computer Law & Security Review 35, 4 (2019) 410-422, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AIP.html

Clarke R. (2019c) 'Regulatory Alternatives for AI' Computer Law & Security Review 35, 4 (2019) 398-409, PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AIR.html

Clarke R. (2021) 'A Simulation Model for COVID-19 Public Health Management: Design and Preliminary Evaluation' Proc. Bled eConference, 27-30 June 2021, PrePrint at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/CVMP.html

Clarke R. (2022) 'Future Studies: Of What, For Whom, and How? Examples from Research into the Surveillance Society' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, August 2022, at http://rogerclarke.com/DV/FSSS.html#RT

Clarke R. (2024) 'Impact Assessment as a Part of Doing Business' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, February 2024, PrePrint at http://rogerclarke.com/DV/IAA24.html

Clarke R. (2025) 'Principles for the Responsible Application of Generative AI' Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, January 2025, at http://rogerclarke.com/EC/RGAI-C.html

Clarke R. & Michael K. (2024) 'Multi-Stakeholder Risk Assessment of Socio-Technical System Projects' Proc. Australasian Conf Infor Syst, December 2024, PrePrint at http://rogerclarke.com/DV/MSRA-ACIS24.html

Author Affiliations

Roger Clarke is Principal of Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra. He is also a Visiting Professorial Fellow associated with UNSW Law & Justice, and a Visiting Professor in Computing in the College of Systems & Society at the Australian National University.

The content and infrastructure for these community service pages are provided by Roger Clarke through his consultancy company, Xamax. From the site's beginnings in August 1994 until February 2009, the infrastructure was provided by the Australian National University. During that time, the site accumulated close to 30 million hits. It passed 75 million in late 2024. Sponsored by the Gallery, Bunhybee Grasslands, the extended Clarke Family, Knights of the Spatchcock and their drummer

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd ACN: 002 360 456 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916

Created: 12 January 2025 - Last Amended: 7 February 2025 by Roger Clarke - Site Last Verified: 15 February 2009
This document is at www.rogerclarke.com/EC/TIAN.html
Mail to Webmaster   -    © Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 1995-2024   -    Privacy Policy