The privacy commissioner of Canada: Multiple roles, diverse expectations and structural dilemmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The contemporary roles of the privacy commissioner of Canada are multiple: he can be an ombudsman, auditor, consultant, educator, policy adviser, regulator and judge. Yet, Canadian privacy legislation provides quite poor guidance as to how he should perform and balance these roles and tends to put emphasis on complaints‐resolution, a function that is less useful in promoting general compliance with the privacy principles. The analysis of the experience of privacy protection agencies, however, suggests that the most important powers are those that are general rather than specific, and proactive rather than reactive. The implementation of privacy protection law is as much an educational effort as a regulatory one, as much can be achieved in anticipation of policy and system development if privacy protection is built in at the outset. The successful implementation of privacy protection policy involves a considerable degree of learning and mutual adjustment and readjustment. It is not characterized by a top‐down process of command, control and sanction. The privacy commissioner is one among many actors involved in privacy protection policy in Canada, and his success is dependent on the recognition that he has many policy instruments at his disposal, besides the law, to encourage higher standards for the treatment of personal information by Canadian organizations. Sommaire: Le Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée du Canada joue à l'heure actuelle des rôles multiples: il peut être ombudsman, vérificateur, consultant, éducateur, conseiller en politique, responsable de la réglementation et juge. Et pourtant, les lois canadiennes relatives à la protection de la vie privée n'offrent que de médiocres directives quant à la manière dont il devrait s'acquitter de ces différents rôles et les équilibrer. Elles ont tendance à mettre I'accent sur la résolution des plaintes, fonction qui est moins utile pour promouvoir I'observation des principes du respect de la vie privée. L'analyse de l'expérience des organismes de protection de la vie privée laisse entendre cependant que les plus importants pouvoirs sont ceux qui sont généraux plutôt que spécifiques, et proactifs plutôt que réactionnels. La mise en aeuvre de lois sur la protection de la vie privée représente un effort autant éducatif que réglementaire, car de bons résultats peuvent être atteints si la protection de la vie privée fait dès le depart partie intégrante de l'élaboration de politiques et de systèmes. La mise en ceuvre réussie d'une politique de protection de la vie privée comporte un important degré d'apprentissage et d'ajustement et de réajustement mutuels. Elle n'est pas caractérisée par un processus pyramidal descendant de commande, de contrôle et de sanction. Le Commissaire à la protection de la vie privée est l'un des nombreux acteurs de la politique de protection de la vie privée au Canada. Son succès repose sur le fait qu'il dispose de nombreux instruments de politique, en plus de la loi, pour encourager les organismes canadiens qui traitent les renseignements personnels à adopter des normes très éelevées.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.078 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".