Access of Evil? Legislating Online Youth Privacy in the Information Age
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article seeks to address what constitutes youth online privacy, how youth conceive of their privacy, whether their privacy needs protecting, and, if so, how youth privacy should be regulated online. First, the article begins by rooting the issue of online youth privacy in the current social, technological, economic, political, and legal context, drawing on social science research to demonstrate both the threats and opportunities created by technology for youth privacy.\nSecond, the analysis focuses on the relative strengths and weaknesses of current federal legislation as the primary law governing the collection, use, and disclosure of youth’s personal information through their online activities, including their use of social networks and mobile applications or “apps.” Under the Constitution Act, 1867, privacy is not explicitly assigned to the provinces or the federal government. Depending on the context, privacy may affect provincial domain over property and civil rights, or the federal power over trade and commerce. However, aside from British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec, which have passed “substantially similar” legislation to the federal government, the federal statute applies to all private organizations across the country that collect information in the course of a commercial activity, even if they only carry on business in a single province. Practically speaking, to the extent commercial websites collect young people’s information across interprovincial or international borders, they are going to be governed by the federal statute, in recognition of the federal government’s power to regulate interprovincial and international trade. It is worth noting that Canadian jurisprudence on youth privacy online is underdeveloped by virtue of the fact that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) generally diverts such grievances from the judicial system. Even then, the Privacy Commissioner has so far only conducted one investigation into a website that specifically targets youth. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s report into the complaint against Nexopia.com, a Canadian-made social network, figures prominently in this analysis. It serves as a case study of how federal privacy legislation is applied in practice, and an example by which the effectiveness of the existing regime may be evaluated.\nThird, after canvassing the shortcomings of the current legal regime, I consider proposals for reform and assess their merits. This analysis draws on the legislative experience of the United States, both as a possible model for reform and as a cautionary tale. Given that many of the world’s most popular websites among youth originate in the US, that country’s Congress has arguably had a greater influence on the information practices and privacy policies affecting Canadian youth than any other. Finally, I offer an alternative legal solution to give more meaningful expression to youth privacy rights, while avoiding the paradigmatic trap of most existing proposals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».