A Step Forward or Just a Sidestep? Year Five of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Digital Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past five years, the Supreme Court of Canada has released a series of decisions meant to bring section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the Digital Age. These decisions acknowledged the unique privacy interests that people have in the information stored on their digital devices and the potential for modern technology to eviscerate privacy if the law of search and seizure does not keep pace with technological development. There is a danger, however, that recent victories for privacy in the courts will be illusory unless the courts develop additional manner of search limits on the search and seizure of digital devices. In the case of searches conducted pursuant to a search warrant, this article suggests that the only way to achieve the appropriate balance between law enforcement needs and privacy rights is for issuing justices to impose a set of search protocols that constrain and limit the scope of the search. Outside the search warrant context (i.e., where the police conduct a warrantless search of a digital device pursuant to the “search-incident-to-arrest” power), this article suggests that the only way to protect privacy interests, and to achieve meaningful after-the-fact judicial review, is to require that police electronically record all warrantless searches of digital devices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| 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".