Protecting Rights in the digital Age: The Application of the Charter in Cyberspace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the swift passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-51) in 2015, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has had the unprecedented and highly controversial authority to take “reasonable and proportionate” measures — often referred to as “threat reduction measures”—to reduce threats to Canadian security. While there are some limits to the types of measures CSIS can employ, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act permits the use of measures that would otherwise contravene the laws of Canada or limit a right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) so long as they are judicially authorized by a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. As new threats and threat actors proliferate online, it is anticipated that CSIS will increasingly carry out its threat reduction mandate in the digital world. Yet, in June 2018, CSIS’s former review body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, reported that CSIS had never sought a threat reduction warrant from the Federal Court. What remains unclear is why. Is it possible that CSIS has never employed a measure that might violate someone’s freedom of association, expression, or mobility rights, or their right to liberty and personal security protected under the Charter? Or has CSIS concluded that the Charter does not govern actions carried out in cyberspace and, as such, that their online conduct falls beyond the reach and oversight of the Federal Court? Unfortunately, Canadian Courts have never been asked, and legal academics have never answered whether the Charter constrains online state action. The Department of Justice and CSIS have also never publicly enunciated their legal position on this subject. To date, the government’s interpretation of the Charter’s application to state cyber operations remains classified. This dissertation dissects these issues for the first time and ultimately concludes that the Charter governs state conduct in cyberspace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".