Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are the legal rights and protections available to students? In the first of a two-part series, the author explains the law in relation to unauthorised photographs. In 2005, Philip Ruddock, then Commonwealth Attorney-General, was considering new laws to prohibit voyeuristic photography of children. It is worth considering exactly how the current laws relate to unauthorised photography, as well as considering the proposed law reform and the approaches of other common law countries. The Attorneys-General note, in a discussion paper on the issue, that it would be inappropriate to amend Australian copyright laws since these protect the intellectual property in a creative endeavour and can only provide remedies for acts connected to infringements of intellectual property rights. As an alternative, the Attorneys-General suggest that, for example, a Commissioner for Children be given the role of protecting children's reasonable interests with regard to unauthorised photographs. In this article, the author first examines the legal aspects of the right to privacy and the right not to be photographed, then questions whether there is currently protection under the Privacy Act in relation to unauthorised photographs, and concludes there is not, nor is there under common law. He then outlines protection currently available under criminal law in Victoria and New South Wales, with reference also to the criminal codes in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, before discussing the proposals put forward by the Attorneys-General. [Author abstract, ed]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".