MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199819681 · doi:10.32920/22227871.v1

Privacy by Design by Regulation: The Case Study of Ontario

2023· article· en· W3199819681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Avner Levin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersTel Aviv University
KeywordsCommissionPrivacy by DesignInformation privacyRegulatorPrivacy policyEuropean commissionBusinessGeneral Data Protection RegulationInternet privacyEuropean unionLegal aspects of computingFTC Fair Information PracticeInformation privacy lawPrivacy lawData Protection Act 1998Public relationsPolitical sciencePublic administrationLawComputer scienceThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of two cases in which Ontario organizations, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission (OLG), attempted, with the support of the Information and Privacy Commissioner at the time, Ann Cavoukian, to design privacy into their use of closed circuit surveillance cameras (CCTV). The study examines the role of the regulator in facilitating Privacy by Design (“PbD”) solutions. With the introduction of PbD into the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is important to understand the conditions under which PbD can succeed and the role which regulators can play (if at all) in promoting such success. The findings are organized into three overarching themes: PbD-focused findings, leadership and organizational findings, and regulator-focused findings. The article argues that privacy continues to persist as an engineering problem despite PbD, that (related to that) there is growing recognition of privacy as an issue of organizational change and leadership, and consequently, that the role of the regulator must evolve if PbD is to become a meaningful regulatory tool, an evolution that carries with it both risks and opportunities for privacy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0460.019
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207