Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract It was a bold move when this book was first published in 2002 to write a book called The Law of Privacy and the Media. The impact of measures like the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was only just beginning to be felt and debate continued about what place privacy had in the common law. By bringing together into one volume the different facets of privacy protection, The Law of Privacy and the Media was therefore something of a foretoken. It showed what might lie ahead if academics and judges seized the gauntlet and recognized privacy as a fully-fledged legal right. Now, just thirteen years later, the gauntlet has been seized. The tort of misuse of private information is an established part of the common-law landscape, harassment legislation has been harnessed in the fight against intrusion and publication of private information, and the importance of data protection legislation and European data directives is finally coming to be fully understood. Similar developments are occurring abroad: New Zealand and Ontario have recognized new torts of intrusion into seclusion; Australian judges continue to push the boundaries of breach of confidence; and recommendations for privacy reform abound.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.276 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".