THE ANGLO-AMERICAN/CONTINENTAL PRIVACY DIVIDE? HOW CIVILIAN PERSONALITY RIGHTS CAN HELP RECONCEPTUALIZE THE “RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN” TOWARDS GREATER TRANSNATIONAL INTEROPERABILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Court of Justice’s much maligned decision in Google. v Costeja Gonzalez, appears to compel search engines, to remove links to certain impugned search results at the request of individual Europeans (and potentially by others beyond Europe’s borders). Further complicating an already thorny situation is the court’s failure to impart much-needed practical guidance in Costeja. What is more, Costeja may inadvertantly and ironically have the effect of appointing (chiefly American) ‘data controllers’ as unwitting private censors; arbiters of the European public interest. Indeed, the decision may be deemed a culmination of the growing divergence between Anglo-American and Continental approaches to privacy significantly extending beyond the United States, to the United Kingdom. It further reflects internal normative contraditions within the continental tradition and emphasizes the urgency of re-conceptualizing digital privacy in a more transystemically viable fashion in Europe and beyond. In light of the above, informational privacy, the following posits, must ultimately be re-theorized in a manner that would presumably obviate - or at the very least palliate - the need for a stand-alone ill-defined and under-theorized “right to be forgotten”, as set out at pains in Costeja. It is in essence a procedural right predicated on the impracticable idea that individuals “own” data, rather than a right to their identity itself and the perception thereof. It therefore fails to accord with the long-established civilian tradition of personality rights, which, unlike its common law counterpart, emphasizes personhood not property. In the end, a more robust construction of privacy predicated on protecting identity would allow for a more nuanced balancing of privacy and freedom of expression.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".