MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413469295 · doi:10.29173/mlj1391

FREEDOM CONVOY FEVER: Social Media and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Artificially Intelligent Surveillance State

2025· article· en· W4413469295 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Soo

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbandonment (legal)DoctrineSocial mediaJurisprudenceExpectation of privacySupreme courtLaw enforcementPolitical scienceLawState (computer science)Right to privacyThe Right to PrivacyEnforcementState policeComputer scienceHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2022 “Freedom Convoy” in Ottawa attracted widespread attention across traditional and social media outlets as the demonstration evolved into a long-drawn-out standoff between protestors and state officials. In the ensuing aftermath, the outpour of images and videos that flooded social media during the protest were subsequently used by law enforcement to arrest and charge individuals involved. This inspired an examination of the constitutional status of these “seizures.” Using the Freedom Convoy as a backdrop, this paper examines the reasonable expectation of privacy in information shared on social media, beginning with a discussion of the influence that artificial intelligence and machine learning have on modern policing. A broad discussion of whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in this area of the law then follows, and the difficulty of overcoming the doctrine of abandonment in establishing a privacy interest is noted. The issue of abandonment is then re-evaluated in light of recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment from United States v. Maynard. A conclusion is then presented, and suggestions are made concerning future research efforts.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207