MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spionage im Zeitalter von Big Data – Globale Überwachung und der Schutz der Privatsphäre im Völkerrecht

2014· article· en· W2916612617 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchiv des Völkerrechts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigitalization, Law, and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The revelations prompted by Edward Snowden about mass surveillance by the NSA, GCHQ and other intelligence services of the so-called Five-Eyes states (United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) have triggered a lively debate about the framework for espionage activities in contemporary international law. The different facets of the various activities of surveillance make it impossible to arrive at an overriding and general legal assessment of whether the activities of the Five-Eyes states are lawful as such. However, different aspects of foreign surveillance activities can be assessed in the light of international law. On a general level, the article makes two claims: first, it argues that the rise of what can be called »big data« fundamentally challenges traditional notions of the protection of data and privacy. Second, the surveillance activities of NSA, GCHQ and other services are a consequence of the geopolitical changes of the last decade. Whereas espionage was traditionally seen as an inter-state phenomenon with limited (if at all) human rights implications, the turn to non-state actors as central threats in todays world has brought wide parts of the world population into the focus of intelligence agencies. With these observations in mind, the article first assesses the legal rules for espionage in international law in general as well as particular rules which might apply to the legal situation in Germany. General international law knows no prohibition of espionage as such. At the same time, states are free to punish spies. In addition, specific acts of espionage may violate rules of international law such as the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of non-intervention. Limits may also flow from the legal rules pertaining to diplomatic and consular relations. In a second step, the barely existing international rules on data protection are presented before the article turns, in a third step, to the field of human rights law. With respect to the protection of privacy against surveillance measures it needs to be assessed, first, whether the relevant human rights agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights apply extraterritorially as some parts of the global surveillance activities have arguably taken place outside of the respective states territories or produce effects abroad. After surveying the various issues raised in this context, the article proposes a framework for determining whether surveillance measures constitute an exercise of jurisdiction in the sense of the human rights treaties. Finally, the substantive standards of protection are assessed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.257 · 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