The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act: A Lost Opportunity to Democratize Canada's 'Technological Society'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bill C-6, more recently known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, is promoted by the Canadian government as privacy legislation to protect Canadian's personal information. This paper explores that characterization and concludes that it is inaccurate and misleading. The problem that motivated a response by Parliament is the proliferation and commercial importance of personal information, concerns Canadians have about its uncontrolled use by the private sector and the inadequacy of existing law to address those concerns. However, Bill C-6 has not responded to the problem as a result of several factors, primarily the disproportionate and anti-democratic importance of business interests in the promulgation of the legislation and the characterization of privacy in market terms rather than in the language of human rights and long-term policy objectives. Bill C-6's failure to achieve its substantive goals is demonstrated by comparing it to other models of privacy protection, such as the Privacy Charter proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights, equivalent legislation in Quebec and the Australian Privacy Charter. Ultimately, the paper proposes solutions that would be more responsive to citizens' privacy concerns.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".