MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Right to Public Privacy under Surveillance

2012· book-chapter· en· W2504361695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina M. Akrivopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in human and social aspects of technology book series · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosPolitical scienceInternet privacyAnonymityPoliticsRight to privacyArgument (complex analysis)Law and economicsAutonomyInformation privacyPublic relationsLawComputer securitySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter is critically commenting on the augmenting policy of public surveillance through the ‘Public Camera Surveillance’ system (CCTV technology) in Greece and in other countries such as the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia. It presents the arguments in favor and against such policies and the main threats that such policy-making poses for the freedom of the individual as represented in the relevant jurisprudence of the ECtHR. The main argument of the presentation underlines the need for the interpretive deduction of a right to anonymity or otherwise of a right to public privacy from the traditional notion of privacy. This right enables the individual to enjoy his/her privacy in public, thus allowing him/her to circulate in public assured that his/her presence will remain anonymous and permitting him/her to merge within the rest of the crowd. Such a right is specifically valuable in order to protect the political autonomy of the individual as a participant of demonstrations and public movements or manifestations under the precondition that his/her deeds do not merit the state’s intervention. The presentation closes with some remarks on the changing social and political ethos that brings forward the demand of public surveillance as a need for public safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in human and social aspects of technology book seriesSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207