Balancing Privacy & Security: Legal Frameworks Governing Digital Surveillance in Law Enforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern technology equipment has facilitated the police force by the use of facial recognition, data monitoring, and internet tracking equipment to fight crime and terrorism.But it makes the problem of violation of individual rights, particularly personal privacy, more acute.The subject of this paper is the regulation of surveillance in India about the promotion of the public interest and citizens' rights.Main legislation has been discussed alongside the Information Technology Act, of 2000, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023, and other legal judgments, including the Right to Privacy judgment in the Supreme Court Case of K. S. Puttaswamy.Laws on surveillance across different countries are also presented to compare and contrast this situation with other international laws like; the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union, the USA Patriot Act as well and the privacy laws of Canada.Thus, the paper highlights the drawbacks of the Indian legislation on judicial oversight, transparency, accountability, and data protection principles in cases of probable abuse and the consternating evidence for over-emerging disproportionality in the dig watch.Twining such measures, India can maintain the proper balance between rights and liberties as well as liberties and security to save democratic values along with strengthening the security measures in the aspect of digital society.It is for this reason that these measures are very important to prevent the general public from losing their trust and becoming victims of an extra vigilante state.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".