MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124491733

Real and substantial connections : Enforcing Canadian privacy laws against American social networking companies

2014· article· en· W3124491733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin J. Bennett, Christopher A. Parsons, Ádám Molnár

Bibliographic record

VenueDeakin Research Online (Deakin University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionPrivacy lawPrivacy policyPersonally identifiable informationPrivacy by DesignInformation privacyEnforcementInformation privacy lawBusinessInternet privacyLaw enforcementData Protection Act 1998Privacy laws of the United StatesCompliance (psychology)Data breachLawPolitical scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any organisation that captures personal data in Canada for processing is deemed to have a ‘real and substantial connection’ to Canada and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). What has been the experience of enforcing Canadian privacy protection law on US-based social networking services? We analyse some of the high-profile enforcement actions by the Privacy Commissioner. We also test compliance through an analysis of the privacy policies of the top 23 SNSs operating in Canada and through the use of access to personal information requests. Our analysis suggests that non-compliance is widespread, and is explained by the countervailing conceptions of jurisdiction inherent in corporate policy and technical system design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0320.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeakin Research Online (Deakin University)Same topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207