MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157691714 · doi:10.1177/14737795211010822

Warrantless searches of a mobile phone’s digital contents and privacy interests in Hong Kong

2021· article· en· W3157691714 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

VenueCommon Law World Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarrantAppealLawOfficerMobile phonePolitical sciencePower (physics)PhoneBusinessComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case note examines the latest development on the police’s power to search the digital contents of an arrested person’s mobile phone without a warrant in Sham Wing Kan v Commissioner of Police [2020] HKCA 186; [2020] 2 HKLRD 529. Two issues will be discussed. First, the Court of Appeal’s approach to American and Canadian law in this area will be critically analysed. Second, the safeguards proposed by the Court for a police officer’s warrantless search of the digital contents on a mobile phone will be evaluated. It argues that the Court’s erroneous interpretation of foreign law on the police’s power to search the digital contents on a mobile phone has contributed to the inadequacy of the safeguards proposed by the Court vis-à-vis an arrestee’s privacy rights under the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.276 · 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