Invading the Mind: The Right to Privacy and the Definition of Terrorism in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with the predictive crime model that was unleashed in the war against terrorism and its implications the right to privacy in Canada. The paper is divided into four parts. First, it examines the definition of terrorism found in the 2001 anti-terrorism legislation, which includes a motivational element that requires investigators to prove an offence was committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause. Then it discusses the development and philosophical underpinnings of the right to privacy and the current state of protection this right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with a particular focus on the nascent privacy jurisprudence under section 7. The paper then lays out a hypothetical scenario based on the application of offences under the anti-terrorism legislation, and demonstrates how the interests that the right to privacy is supposed to protect could be violated by provisions that are based on the terrorism definition. Finally, the paper looks at the direction that Charter jurisprudence may need to take in order to protect privacy in the future, looking in particular at the principles of fundamental justice under section 7, their current content, and the need to adapt them to the new technological crime fighting environment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".