Reduction to Absurdity: Reasonable Expectations of Privacy and the Need for Digital Enlightenment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: This article seeks a deeper understanding of privacy in the digital age through an examination of a phenomenon the authors call “information emanation”. Focusing on Canadian jurisprudence involving heat and odour emanations, the authors examine the current approaches of Canadian courts in decisions about the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. The authors focus on three judicial trends that pose serious risks to privacy: 1) the tendency to equate different kinds of emanations and conclude that information emanations into public spaces never attract a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) a reductionist approach to information privacy, which obscures the deep social significance of police investigative techniques; and 3) the adoption of a non-normative approach to ‘reasonable expectations’ ushering in a shift in privacy discourse away from democracy, rights and duties towards an inquiry about digital technology and standards of police practice. The authors conclude that while the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to guard against many of these risks, recent jurisprudence indicates an ongoing threat of backslide to the reductionist approach to informational privacy, especially in future cases involving emerging digital technologies.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it