Le droit au respect de la vie privée : les défis digitaux, une perspective de droit comparé (The Right to Respect for Private Life: Digital Challenges, A Comparative Law Perspective)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La presente etude fait partie d’un projet plus general qui vise a jeter les bases d’une comparaison des regimes juridiques applicables au droit au respect de la vie privee dans les differents ordres juridiques, ainsi que des solutions prevues par ces ordres juridiques pour repondre aux enjeux que l’«ere digitale» pose a ce droit. Les pages ci-apres exposent, relativement au Canada et en rapport avec le theme de l'etude, la legislation en vigueur, la jurisprudence la plus pertinente et la nature du droit a la vie privee, et s’achevent par quelques conclusions sur les enjeux precites. Le droit canadien a la vie privee est un droit recent dont les multiples dimensions, juridiques, sociales ou politiques, rendent difficile la synthese. Cette difficulte s’explique par la diversite des sources et des approches. Les gouvernements federal et provinciaux ont en effet une competence partagee en matiere de protection a la vie privee. Il ne faut donc pas parler du droit a la vie privee mais bien des droits a la vie privee. Cette precision est importante puisque c’est la tradition civiliste qui est suivie au Quebec et la common law dans les autres provinces. Notons qu’en 2012 la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a reconnu l’existence d’un recours delictuel d’intrusion dans l’intimite (tort), creant un precedent important dans les provinces de common law. Dans une perspective d’ensemble, le developpement du droit au respect de la vie privee suit deux grands mouvements. Le premier est le fait de la jurisprudence de plus en plus sophistiquee de la Cour supreme du Canada relativement a l’interpretation des garanties fondamentales prevues a la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes. Les decisions de la Cour supreme, decisions qui font autorite dans tout le pays en matiere constitutionnelle, donnent des reponses univoques aux defis technologiques en posant et definissant les valeurs et principes qui sont mis en jeu. Son influence est considerable et, surtout, federe la matiere autour d’une certaine idee de ce constitue l’interet national canadien. C’est la notion centrale d’attente raisonnable en matiere de protection a la vie privee, notion neutre technologiquement, qui servira d’outil pour delimiter le champ de protection accordee a la personne dans la societe de l’information. Le second mouvement fait voir l’importance croissante accordee aux biens informationnels et, parmi ceux-ci, aux renseignements personnels. Le droit des renseignements personnels devient incontestablement le lieu principal de la reflexion sur la protection de la vie privee a l’ere digitale. English Abstract: This study is part of a broader project aimed at laying the groundwork for a comparison of the legal regimes applicable to the right to respect for private life in different legal orders, as well as the solutions provided for by these legal orders in response to the challenges of the The following pages describe, in relation to Canada and in relation to the theme of study, the legislation in force, the most relevant jurisprudence and the nature of the right to privacy, and conclude with some conclusions on the aforementioned issues. Canada's right to privacy is a recent law whose many dimensions—legal, social or political—make the synthesis difficult. This difficulty is explained by the diversity of sources and approaches. The federal and provincial governments share competency in the field of protection of privacy. It is not necessary to speak about the right to privacy but privacy rights. This precision is important because it is the civil law tradition that is followed in Quebec and the common law in the other provinces. It should be noted that in 2012 the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized the existence of an unlawful intrusion into privacy (wrong), setting an important precedent in the common law provinces. From an overall perspective, the development of the right to respect for private life follows two great movements. The first is the increasingly sophisticated jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation of fundamental guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decisions of the Supreme Court, which have authority throughout the country on constitutional matters, give unequivocal answers to technological challenges by asking and defining the values and principles that are involved. Its influence is considerable and, above all, federates the material around a certain idea of what constitutes the Canadian national interest. It is the central notion of reasonable expectation of protection of privacy, a notion that is technologically neutral, which will serve as a tool to limit the scope of protection granted to a person in the information society. The second movement shows the growing importance of informational assets and, among these, personal information. The right to personal information is undoubtedly the focal point of the reflection on the protection of privacy in the digital age.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".