From Scanning to Sexting: The Scope of Protection of Dignity-Based Privacy in Canadian Child Pornography Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian approach to privacy rights in one's body is embedded in the relationship between interests in privacy, bodily integrity, and human dignity. Clarifying these interests is complicated by Canada's middle-ground stance between the European "dignity-based" approach to privacy and the US "liberty-based" orientation. The Canadian approach is closer to the European model when intrusions upon the body are conceived as wholly or mostly non-consensual (e.g., strip searches, voyeurism, and most child pornography). However, once consent plays a potentially determinative rote, the US liberty-based approach gains ground. This reluctance to fully align dignity with privacy results in confusion about the scope of ongoing privacy interests in nude images, as evidenced by recent debates about the use of airport body scanners and the appropriate response to adolescent "sexting." The author argues that a clearer alignment with a dignity-based approach emerging in Canadian child pornography jurisprudence would better address the harms caused by misuse of photography, as applicable to both children and adults.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".