Idiosyncrasy on the line: disciplinary surveillance, liberal surveillance, risk society and the UK ban on intercept evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews recent attempts at legislative and regulatory development in relation to the interception of telecommunications within the United Kingdom (UK). The ban on the use of intercept evidence within United Kingdom criminal procedures is critically evaluated in the light of the use of administrative detention for terror suspects and the United Kingdom's responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights. Drawing upon comparisons with Australia and Canada, the research analyses the differences between common law telecommunications interception regimes overseen by the executive or judiciary. The national administration of telecommunications interception is then re-assessed within the constructs of disciplinary surveillance, liberal surveillance and the risk society. Though frequently dismissed as an historical irrelevance, the United Kingdom position on regulation and evidential use of telecommunications intercept is determined as showing significant modernist surveillance tendencies. This is in contrast to Australia and Canada which show significant tendencies towards liberal surveillance and risk management. The author argues that the current regulatory framework for intercept within the UK lends itself to a re-imagining of Foucalt's Panopticon model. It is also suggested that human rights considerations are paradoxically blamed for sustaining the UK ban on intercept evidence, they are more likely to effect a change in the law than crime-fighting considerations.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".