The Case for a U.S. Privacy Commissioner: A Canadian Commissioner’s Perspective, 19 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 1 (2000)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demands of social democratic government, the growth of electronic commerce, and the advance of technology have fueled the debate over internet privacy. Technology offers unprecedented opportunities but can also become tools of abuse. Debate in the United States centers around the conflicting interests of industry self-control versus government regulation. Technological and market-based solutions are ineffective because they lead to inadequate and inconsistent protection. Many user-driven privacy choices can impede the growth of consumer trust. Voluntarily adopted privacy policies are either extremely limited or easily circumvented with tracking technology that allows no consumer control over the collection of their personal data. Incompatible national standards can disrupt data flow. The United States could address these concerns by shifting away from its industry and state-based regulatory model to one based on fair information practices, with oversight assigned to a single agency controlled by a U.S. Privacy Commissioner who could work with international officials to resolve complex privacy issues.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".