The Dynamic System Theory of Legal Protection for Personal Information Rights Infringement

The advent of the big data era has presented unprecedented challenges to remedies for personal information infringement in areas such as damage assessment,proof of causation,determination of illegality,fault assessment,and liability.Traditional tort law is unable to provide a robust response for these challenges,which severely hinders human rights protection in the digital society.The dynamic system theory represents a third path between fixed constitutive elements and general clauses.It both overcomes the rigidity of the“allor-nothing”legal effect evaluation mechanism of the“element-effect”model and avoids the uncertainty of the general clause model.It can effectively enhance the flexibility of the legal system in responding to social changes.In light of this,it is necessary to construct a dynamic foundational evaluation framework for personal information infringement under the guidance of the dynamic system theory.By relying on the dynamic interplay effect of various foundational evaluation elements,this framework can achieve a flexible evaluation of the constitutive elements of liability and the legal effects of liability for personal information infringement.Through this approach,the crisis of personal information infringement in the era of big data can be mitigated,and the realization of personal information rights as digital human rights can be promoted.

Reconstructing the Framework for Determining and Compensating Dual Risk-Based Damage to Personal Information

In the era of big data,the dual risk-based damage associated with personal information leakage presents unique challenges.The unrealistic nature of objective risk-based damage without benchmarks and the high threshold for determining subjective risk-based damage have become obstacles for information subjects seeking compensation.Traditional approaches to supporting risk-based damage are inadequate in the realm of personal information.The theoretical support and compensation mechanisms for dual risk-based damage to personal information need re-exploration.The information subject’s control over the value of personal information assets based on the right to know forms the theoretical basis for objective risk-based damage.Additionally,the independence of mental suffering and the relaxation of the“serious”standard allow for a broader interpretation of subjective risk-based damage.In addressing claims by information subjects,first,courts need to assess and quantify the level of risk-based damage;second,legislation should introduce a statutory compensation system to define the range of personal information asset value,with a focus on the fault of personal information processors in civil liability;finally,establishing a special representative litigation mechanism can effectively address collective disputes over personal information infringement and alleviate the litigation burden on information subjects.

Why The Constitution Should Protect Personal Credit Information?——An Approach of Right Argumentation

Protecting personal credit information through constitutional rights is not only essemtial for individuals to defend against infringements on their personal credit information rights and interests by public power in the social credit system,but also a requirement for unified legislation on social credit to explore the basis for constitutional norms.In the era of the credit economy,personal credit information has become a vital resource for realizing personal autonomy.Along with the increase in the state’s supervision and control of personal credit,the realization of the autonomous value in the interests related to personal credit information has also set more obligations for the state.Therefore,interests related to personal credit information should be regarded as a constitutional right.Because of its significant economic interest and value,the right to personal credit information should be classified as a constitutional property right.As a constitutional property right,the right to personal credit information can not only help protect people’s economic interests,but also achieve the goal of safeguarding their personality interests.

Challenges and New Directions of Information Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities in China: From the Perspective of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Accessibility is the basis and prerequisite for persons with disabilities to enjoy and exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms With the rapid development of the internet, providing and promoting information accessibility is considered an important obligation for the State In the process of transforming international human rights law into domestic law, how to deal with the human rights protection of persons with disabilities and the obligations of the private sector to ensure persons with disabilities receive services and products that meet the requirements and principles of information accessibility has become a development issue in the new era Against the backdrop of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in the context of the booming development of the cause of persons with disabilities in China, legal scholars, persons with disabilities, and organizations have jointly proposed the Beijing Initiative on the Principles of Information Accessibility for Science and Technology Products It clarifies that the private sector should embrace the human rights model advocated by the Convention in terms of information accessibility, and provide equal participation for persons with disabilities in the process of designing, producing and selling scientific and technological products The Initiative also states that the private sector should keep pace with the United Nation’s sustainable development goals and the basic national policy of building a well-to-do society in an all round way, ensuring persons with disabilities are included within a moderately well-off society It also provides civil opinions on the formulation and clarification of relevant laws in the future.

The Model Selection of Personal Information Protection in Criminal Procedures

In criminal procedures,the right to personal information does not conform to the human rights characteristics of criminal procedures centered on due process right,in which the right to be forgotten and the right to access data possess no attributes of independent litigation right.The theory of the independent right to personal information lacks a legitimate basis and should not be used as the protection model for personal information in criminal proceedings.Given the particularity of interest measurement and the individuality and negativity of human rights in criminal procedures,the protection of personal information in the criminal procedure should be aimed at the risk of transformation from collective general information to private sensitive information.Specifically,it is the right of personal information not to be excessively collected.Accordingly,the personal information protection should be included in the scope of criminal procedures by the conceptual interpretation of the informational privacy,i.e.,the dependency protection model.In this regard,the criminal proceeding should appropriately introduce the basic principles of personal information protection and the limited general forensic to deal with the impact and challenge of emerging right claim on the criminal justice system.

Analysis on Ecological Personality Right--In the Perspective of Environmental Personality Right

This essay focuses on expanding the traditional theory of personality right and referring to the outside legislative cases in order to promote environmental information disclosure,the purpose,therefore is to realize the ecological personality right.

Constitutional Nature of Personality Rights and Its Manifestation in Civil Law

The formation of personality comes from people’s choices and pursuit of self-realization,which is influenced by objective factors but not determined by them,so personality does not belong to the domain of objectivity.The concept of general personality rights in the German Constitution was initially premised on the objective determinability in the field of personality,but in constitutional jurisprudence,it gradually shifted to something with individual autonomy as the core and personal self-realization as the goal,and the scope of relevant rights expanded accordingly,so that they could not be clearly distinguished from general freedom of action and thus became the general principle of constitutional rights.The protection of constitutional personality rights in the United States and Japan can also confirm this process,providing evidence for the constitutional nature of personality rights.Deeper research shows that constitutional personality rights actually manifest the highest value of modern constitutions—human dignity.In contrast,the theoretical justification of personality rights in civil law just lies in the objectivity and defensive nature of personality elements.

元宇宙下虚拟数字人信息保护的困境与解决路径

元宇宙下虚拟数字人信息与元宇宙用户信息实时传递,具有同步性,但相较于以自然人为主体的个人信息保护,虚拟数字人信息缺少相应的监管与保护措施,泄露风险加剧。现有立法无法对虚拟数字人信息保护的适用范围、责任认定等核心内容提供精细指引。基于此,当前应立足民法保护、算法技术归责以及行业规范三维路径。首先,确定虚拟数字人法律主体地位、厘清虚拟数字人信息保护范围;其次,建立算法数字技术归责体系,明确责任承担方式;最后,确定元宇宙平台的准入标准、明晰企业的权利义务。

个人信息保护中公共利益规则的适用困境与消解路径

个人信息保护不仅涉及私权主体之间的利益衡量,还涉及公共利益与个人信息权益之间的价值平衡。公共利益优位原则作为一项国内外公认的价值位阶原则,构成了公共利益限缩个人信息权益的正当基础。但过度强调公共利益的优先地位,容易造成公共利益的泛化滥用,进而侵害个人信息权益。我国个人信息保护法中的公共利益规则存在公共利益概念界定模糊、利益代表主体复杂多元、司法适用与监督制度缺位等问题,加剧了公共利益与个人信息权益的冲突失衡。鉴于此,应当借助公共利益层次性差异区分理论,明晰公共利益之内涵、外延,从行政主体、企业主体和其他社会主体三个角度厘清各类主体权益之定位,合理界定司法适用的范围并建立健全司法监督制度。

The Bundle of Personal Information Rights from the Perspective of State Protection

The bundle of personal information rights refers to a set of rights belonging to the subject of personal information,including the right to know,decide,inquire,correct,copy,delete,etc.Such a bundle of rights is usually understood in Chinese civil rights legal circles as a civil right falling under the paradigm of individual autonomy and control,and is interpreted as a specific right to personal information.This understanding somewhat misinterprets the nature and function of the bundle of personal information rights.In terms of its nature,the bundle of personal information rights is the outcome of the state’s obligation to actively protect and empower individuals through institutional safeguards,and is thus essentially a means and a tool of protection granted to individuals by the state under the concept of protective law.In terms of its function,the bundle of personal information rights is both a tool enabling individuals to check and counterbalance processors of information and a strategy for the state to regulate data processors.Understanding the nature and functions of the bundle of rights from the perspective of state protection and regulation strategies helps to construct a fairer,more transparent and rational order of public law data governance under the concept of protective law and promotes the structural optimization and capacity enhancement of the data governance system.As an instrumental right under the state’s regulatory strategy,the implementation of the bundle of personal information rights needs to focus on facilitating the individual’s knowledge,participation and ability to negotiate under procedural justice,as well as the reasonable allocation of rights and obligations between individuals and information processors under distributive justice,with a view to continuously developing and enhancing the state’s regulatory rationality.

对作为独立数据类型的“重要数据”的发生史与本体论考察

“重要数据”从仅具有日常意义的表述,到作为在立法上具有独立地位的数据类型,经历了《网安法》和《数安法》,再到《条例》才逐渐形成较为完整的法制框架,包括目录管理制与确认告知或公开发布制,以及重要数据处理者的识别申报义务、重要数据安全保护义务、实施特定处理行为时的特别义务、年度风险评估义务、处理重要数据的大型网络平台服务提供者的特殊义务。“重要数据”作为数据法律制度,取得了与国家秘密与工作秘密、隐私与个人信息、商业秘密和保密商务信息、政府信息、档案信息与文献信息,以及拟议中的商业数据等数据类型相并列的地位,但仍存在自身内部与核心数据和一般数据的区别,以及在外部与其他数据类型的精确区分问题。

Selection of a Model for Civil Law Protection of Personal Information

Despite its safety and convenience,modern technology has turned out to be an alienating force independent of humankind.The relationship between modern technology and human development furnishes the macro-background for the discussion of personal information protection issues.Chinese law should respond actively to avoid being reduced to a"morass of rules"in the global context.China’s legislation on personal information protection emphasizes public law at the expense of private law;it lacks the rule based support of basic civil law.Within the legal system,civil law is an important means and basic norm for protecting the agency of human beings,as it can provide systemic support for the protection of personal information.Formulation of the corresponding legislation should establish the independent control of personal information by the subject of the information,and should reinforce the position of the weaker side in the interest relationship.With regard to selecting of a model of civil law protection of personal information,the models of indirect protection and legal interest protection both have flaws;the rights protection model is better suited to China’s legislative and judicial realities.The right to personal information can be embedded in the existing normative system of personality rights to ensure the internal compatibility of the legal system.The rights protection model should be adopted in the personality right section of the Civil Code.

论个人信息保护民事公益诉讼起诉主体的范围与顺位

自个人信息保护民事公益诉讼在我国开展以来,理论界与实务界就对该类诉讼的起诉主体存在较大争议,分歧主要集中在范围界定与诉权顺位两个方面。《个人信息保护法》第70条虽然对该类诉讼的起诉主体作了规定,但主体范围不明以及诉权顺位不清的问题仍未得到彻底解决。要正确实施该制度,应否定“履行个人信息保护职责的部门”的起诉资格,扩张“法律规定的消费者组织”的范围,明确“由国家网信部门确定的组织”的条件,并以《民事诉讼法》第58条及不同类型民事公益诉讼之间的关系为依据,厘清不同起诉主体的诉权顺位。当受侵害对象为普通公民时,应尊重检察机关民事公益诉权的补充性,将“国家网信部门确定的组织”的起诉顺位置于检察机关之前;当受侵害对象为众多消费者时,应考虑到受侵害对象的特殊身份,依次由“法律规定的消费者组织”“由网信部门确定的组织”和检察机关行使起诉权。

Human Rights Protection in Genome Editing

Introducing the human rights perspective into the multi-dimensional governance of human genome editing activities would help define boundaries for the behaviors of stakeholders such as the state, researchers, ethics committee members, and the public, and clarify specific practices of these subjects or entities to meet the requirements of human rights obligations. Based on the human dignity principle, humans must never be used as a means to an end in scientific research. The right to physical and mental health requires the implementation of the principles of informed consent, the primacy of life, and risk control in genome editing, as well as the proper treatment of embryos. The right to privacy corresponds to the confidentiality obligations and non-intervention obligations of relevant parties, and the protection of sensitive personal information points to the special compliance requirements regarding information processing. Differential treatment of genome-edited humans requires objective and reasonable justification, and should also meet the requirements of the proportionality principle.

《民法典》背景下个人信息保护的司法考察与制度完善

大数据时代,为充分保障个人的信息安全,我国相继施行的《民法典》《个人信息保护法》对此作出了较为全面的规定。考察相关规则的司法适用,发现我国个人信息保护存在个人信息与隐私权界定不清、损害赔偿威慑作用不足、公益诉讼制度效用未充分发挥、“知情—同意”标准不一且流于形式等问题。为解决上述问题,可通过构建可识别的场景化模式界定个人信息,引入情境脉络完整性理论判定隐私,审慎引入惩罚性赔偿,明晰个人信息保护公益诉讼的适用条件,构建“国家—行业—平台”三层规则体系实现实质同意,全面保护个人信息。

征信体系建设下个人信息保护的进路研究

目前,我国征信体系在社会多个领域实现了覆盖且仍在深入。为弥补“结果保护”理念引发的个人信息收集与共享泛化、个人信息处理规则透明度较低等缺陷,应引入“过程保护”理念,明晰个人征信信息收集、共享的范围,加强有关征信规则的有效应用。同时,要统筹个人征信与失信惩戒的体系建设,明晰个人征信信息侵权赔偿的认定标准,进而实现对个人信息的有效保护。

民事在线诉讼当事人权益保障的检视与路径探索

当事人权益保障体现了以当事人为中心的诉讼理念,确保了实现诉讼效益与程序公正的统一。在线诉讼中单一的程序选择权类型难以满足双方当事人需求、证人远程作证提高了质证难度、异步审理稀释了直接言词原则、个人信息保护与庭审公开之间存在张力。应当根据被选择事项性质合理确定选择权类型、加强证人远程作证技术保障、肯定异步审理的价值并明确边界、具体衡量审判公开与个人信息保护价值利益。

个人信息对价化交易的定性和法律适用

个人信息主体以同意个人信息处理换取特定服务,可称为个人信息对价化交易。当事人可自由选择将这一交易类型构造为双务合同,将同意构造为对待给付,法律上并无任何理由限缩其意思自治的空间并挫败这种交易安排,民法上的人格权益优先和人身债务不得强制执行、个人信息保护法上的任意撤回权和捆绑禁止规则均不构成制度障碍。个人信息对价化交易在法律性质上可归入个人信息许可使用合同。应当引入《民法典》格式条款内容控制制度,突破核心给付义务不受审查的原则,依据是否违反个人信息保护法基本原则与是否不当限制信息主体合同核心权利、加重合同核心义务两项标准,审查作为同意之原因行为的合同条款,以防止个人信息保护法知情同意规则被架空以及合同履行之必需场景被不当扩充。应当以双务合同中的交换关系为核心,同时兼顾个人信息保护法价值取向,配置特殊的履行障碍规则以平衡两造当事人之利益关系:个人信息主体违反同意之义务的,合同相对人并无履行请求权、同时履行抗辩权、损害赔偿请求权和违约金请求权,享有基于对待给付牵连性的合同解除权;信息处理者违反服务提供义务的,信息主体并无减价权,解除权发生条件可放宽至非根本违约情形。

论个人信息侵权中的“损害”

数字时代背景下,个人信息侵权中的损害与传统私法中损害的经典概念之间存在龃龉,使得个人信息侵权难以被损害赔偿请求权所涵盖。《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》第69条中的损害包括财产损害与非财产损害,但司法实践中几乎不存在财产损害;同时,作为精神损害赔偿适用要件之一的严重精神损害也较少出现。个人信息侵权的实质是对人格利益,即人格自由与尊严的损害,从损害救济角度来看,传统的“损害”概念应当进行革新与扩张。故而,将非严重精神损害与升高的未来风险纳入个人信息侵权损害概念体系之中,具有一定的理论基础与比较法解释基础。为了促进《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》的适用和对被告予以充分威慑,文章认为,应当基于损害类型构建赔偿责任体系,淡化精神损害赔偿认定的标准,引入惩罚性赔偿制度,确定侵害个人信息权益的小额损害最低赔偿限额。

死者个人信息权益保护制度的适用困境及完善路径

我国现行立法虽为死者个人信息权益的保护提供了规范路径,却存在诸多疏漏之处,引发死者个人信息权益保护制度适用的内外罅隙。主要表现为死者个人信息权益的归属不明、死者个人信息权益的意定行使之困境以及死者个人信息权益的法定行使规则不清之困境。对此,宜回归权利保护本质,以保护死者人格权益为根基。在完善死者个人信息权益的意定行使规则方面,一是确立死者个人信息权益的意定行使优先于法定行使规则;二是明确自然人可以安排不局限于近亲属的他人为自己死后个人信息权益的行使主体;三是允许自然人指定行权主体对具体类别的个人信息行使权利;四是允许自然人指定安排自己死后权利行使主体享有的具体权利。在完善死者个人信息权益的法定行使规则方面,一是明确死者个人信息权益的保护从自然人死亡时开始,不存在死者生前意定安排则自动进入法定保护机制;二是明晰近亲属作为死者个人信息权益的法定行权主体之顺位;三是明确法定行权所指之个人信息权益范围;四是明确行权主体与侵权主体混同时应当由其他近亲属行权。