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.

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.

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.

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.

《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。

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。

个人信息数据财产化及其确权授权模式构建

个人信息数据确权授权若适用传统人格标识财产化模式,要么导致基础权益错配,要么造成流转效用受阻。通过对财产价值溯源可以发现,个人信息存在原始数据、数据集合、衍生数据三种形态。原始数据非对人“有用的财物”,不构成财产权客体,但因其是个人信息的比特化表达,所以在数字空间中,个人信息权需以其为行权媒介;而数据集合与衍生数据则是数据财产权客体。数据三形态厘清了个人信息权、个人信息数据使用权及数据财产权的差序格局。个人信息数据的商业利用以个人信息权为基础,基于人格自决形成以信息主体同意为路径的许可机制。同意为准法律行为,许可生成低自由度的个人信息数据使用权,该权区别于处理者的数据财产权,需引入告知允诺之债和法定信义义务,以保护信息主体在同意许可中的信赖。

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。

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。

公众知情权与个人隐私权:公共卫生治理中的价值两难与伦理抉择

公众知情权与个人隐私权是公共卫生治理中两种均应保护的重要权利。保障公众知情权与个人隐私权不仅有利于保障公民权利和维护公共健康,而且是维护人的尊严和价值、促进社会文明进步的题中之义。二者既有诸多共同的重要意义和伦理价值,也有不同的价值取向。价值取向的差异可能导致实践中两种权利之间的冲突。现实地看,公共卫生治理中公众知情权与个人隐私权的冲突主要表现为两种权利主体之间的利益冲突、以权利冲突为内容的法律冲突以及由义务主体的“一身二任”导致的义务冲突,从伦理层面看则是两种权利的不同价值取向导致的价值两难、以“尊重”原则为核心的伦理冲突以及以道德义务为核心的价值冲突和角色伦理困境。公共卫生治理中公众知情权与个人隐私权的冲突看似一种非此即彼的“悲剧性冲突”,但由于二者在尊重和保障公民权利和维护公众健康等方面具有价值统一性,两种权利仍然可以而且应该通过有限度的让渡方式予以平衡。平衡公众知情权与个人隐私权的价值两难,应基于公共利益优先和生命健康至上,坚持必要性、最小化和不伤害等伦理原则,使个人隐私权有限度地让渡于公众知情权。

未成年人个人信息保护的现实困境与路径优化

大数据时代,个人信息保护越来越为人们所关注。未成年人作为特殊主体,对其个人信息及隐私的保护具有重要现实价值。虽然我国已有了初步的立法规则构建,但是在实践中仍然存在对未成年人敏感信息的年龄划分界定不清、监护人同意规则不足、未成年人被遗忘权本土化的现实困境。结合域外国家最新立法及我国相关司法实践,以坚持最有利于未成年人原则为基础,需要对未成年人年龄标准进行三阶段界分、提出监护人同意规则的未来出路、完善我国未成年人被遗忘权保护制度,以此优化我国未成年人个人信息的法律保护。

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。

平台处理未成年人个人信息的合规审计分析

个人信息合规审计制度是信息时代运用审计法治推进人权保障事业的重要制度设计,未成年人个人信息保护合规审计是保护未成年人个人信息权益的重要举措。目前实践中尚未形成体系化的互联网平台治理规范,落实平台履行个人信息合规审计义务的针对性、完整性和有效性规定均存在明显瑕疵,且平台自身开展个人信息合规审计的内生动力不足,外部监管也施力有限。为发挥审计法律规制效力,切实保护未成年人个人信息权益,未成年人个人信息合规审计需坚持最有利于未成年人原则。平台开展个人信息合规审计须凸显未成年人保护的特殊性,强化平台内部治理,建立健全平台个人信息保护合规激励机制,以合作监管模式赋能政企协同监管,形成全社会共同参与的未成年人个人信息保护机制。

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。

区块链技术和个人信息权利之冲突与消融

区块链技术的不可篡改性与更正权、被遗忘权、数据可携带权等个人信息新式权利存有抵牾,可能会违背数据最小化等个人信息基本原则,导致区块链技术存在合规难题,直接制约着区块链技术的发展与创新。为寻找区块链技术与个人信息权利的兼容方案,学界的既有研究思路,多属于修正区块链核心技术优势以适应滞后法律规则的区块链改造论,会遮蔽区块链的信任基础和技术优势。应转变思路选择法律适应论,最彻底的方案是革新个人信息的法律规则,构筑区块链豁免机制;相对缓和的方案是,在法律修订前,可借助目的解释论,对被遗忘权作软化解释、对匿名数据作扩大解释、对告知同意作重新解释等,推动区块链与个人信息权利的适度兼容。

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.

信息性人格权的规范构造

信息性人格权是以“不同面向的个人信息”为客体建构的新兴人格权,其具有主体识别性、客体动态性、有限支配性等特质。在类型体系上,信息性人格权包括信息性隐私权、个人信息权、信用权和被遗忘权等具体权利。上述各权利在规制对象上具有同质性,即为个人与信息处理者之间在数字社会形成的一种持续性的信息不平等关系。在规范构造层面,信息性隐私权宜采取合理隐私期待标准,建立“私人安宁+私密信息”的保护范式,实现空间隐私向场景隐私的转化;个人信息权的权能体系建构需以信息保有权为基础、以信息自决权为主干、以信息获取权为分支、以信息修复权维系数字人格的完整性;被遗忘权的本质是一种免受不当信息惩罚的要求权,其具体形态为删除权。吸纳信息性人格权,有助于保障人格尊严和人的自主性、规范新兴人格权法权构造、丰富人格权规则体系和化解智能时代人的主体性危机。

伦理审查在卫生管理研究中的重要性与更新要点——基于《涉及人的生命科学和医学研究伦理审查办法》

《涉及人的生命科学和医学研究伦理审查办法》的发布对于卫生管理研究领域的伦理审查提出了新的要求。基于新规背景,结合卫生管理学科特性,探究了卫生管理研究的伦理审查需求和必要性。在《办法》中,针对卫生管理研究的伦理治理进行了更新,提出了免除伦理审查概念和强调研究参与者权益保护,以及个人信息保护的重要性。还针对卫生管理研究的伦理审查框架进行了探索,包括制定免除伦理审查操作规范、细化规范伦理审查工作制度与流程,以及明确信息数据的来源证明。这些探索旨在为卫生管理研究提供伦理保障,促进其健康发展,并确保研究参与者的权益得到充分尊重和保护。通过研究,希望能够进一步提高卫生管理研究的伦理水平,推动学科的发展和社会的进步。