个人信息权绝对权属性的规范依据与法理证成——从微信读书案切入

Normative Basis and Jurisprudence of Absolute Rights Attribute of Personal Information Right——From the Weread Case

我国《民法典》人格权编规定了有关个人信息保护的内容,但并未使用“个人信息权”的措辞,个人信息保护应为法益保护还是权利保护依然存疑,导致法律解释的不确定性。在微信读书案中,法院采纳了法益保护的观点,在对个人信息的理解中呈现出不少逻辑漏洞与法理缺陷,说明对个人信息保护应为法益保护还是权利保护的澄清实有必要。结合《个人信息保护法》相关内容及《民法典》人格权编的体系结构,权利保护说在法律规范层面具有明确依据,而法理层面的论证也将进一步确认个人信息权的绝对权属性:通过可识别性能够划定个人信息的基本范畴,使得权利客体相对确定、权利边界相对清晰;在私密信息归入隐私权范畴享有绝对权保护的前提下,非私密信息无法获得绝对权保护在法律依据和体系协调两方面都不能成立,个人信息的权利内容也体现为对个人信息有限的自主自决;个人信息权的支配控制权能指向的并非对个人信息的圆满支配与全面控制,而是对特定类型个人信息使用行为的控制。

Civil Code provides for the protection of personal information in the part of personality rights,but does not use the w ording of “the right to personal information”. Therefore,w hether personal information protection should be the legal benefit protection or the right protection is still in doubt,resulting in the uncertainty of legal interpretation. In the Weread case,the court adopted the view of the legal benefit protection, w hich presented many logical loopholes and jurisprudential flaw s in the understanding of personal information,indicating that the clarification is necessary. Combined w ith the relevant contents of the Personal Information Protection Law and the structure of the personality rights part in Civil Code,the rights protection theory is clearly based on the legal norms,and the jurisprudential proof w ill further confirm the absolute right attribute of personal information: the identifiability can delineate the basic scope of personal information,making the object of the right relatively certain and the boundary of the right relatively clear;w hile on the premise that private information is classified as privacy to be protected by absolute right,the fact that non-private information cannot be protected by absolute right is hard to be proofed in terms of both legal basis and system coordination,and the content of the right to personal information is also reflected in the limited self-determination of personal information;the right to dominate and control personal information does not point to the complete domination and full control of personal information,but to the control of the use of specific types for personal information.