The Medium and the Message: Personal Privacy and the Forced Marriage of Police and Telecommunications Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Businesses and law enforcement agencies in Canada are increasingly interested in learning who is doing what online. Persistent client state http cookies, keystroke monitoring and a number of other surveillance technologies have been developed to gather data and otherwise track the movement of potential online customers. Many countries have enacted legislation that would require telecommunications service providers (TSPs) to build a communications infrastructure which would allow law enforcement agencies to gain access to the entirety of every telecommunication transmitted over their facilities. Canada is considering doing the same. This article investigates the changing role of TSPs from gatekeepers of privacy to active partners in the fight against cybercrime. The authors argue that the legislative approach provoked by the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime and soon to be adopted in Canada will lower the threshold of privacy protection and significantly alter the relationship between TSPs and individuals. The article begins with a brief investigation of the role of TSPs as information intermediaries. The authors then examine R. v. Weir, a Canadian search and seizure case involving a TSP that acted as an 'agent of the state' by sending to police copies of a customer's personal emails without a warrant and without notice to the customer. Next, the authors examine the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime, an instrument that calls for state signatories to implement provisions that will mandate an expedited interaction between TSPs and the police. Focusing on its potential implementation in Canada, the authors argue that Bill C-74 would lead to a lower threshold of privacy protection, requiring recourse to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally, the article concludes by considering the privacy implications of the evolving roles of TSPs and their shifting technological architectures. The authors predict that privacy invasive practices that used to happen infrequently and with judicial oversight will soon become part of TSPs' business routine. The authors conclude that the evolving roles of TSPs and the shifting architecture of our communications infrastructure must be built with various safeguards that will not only further the goals of national security and law enforcement but will also preserve and promote personal privacy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".