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.

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。

《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。

刑事诉讼领域个人信息权的限制与规范

个人信息保护兹事体大,重视对个人信息权的保护已成共识,即便在刑事诉讼领域亦不例外。但刑事诉讼中个人信息权的行使可能与犯罪控制的利益和公众知情权、信息开放利益、科学和艺术研究利益等发生冲突,因此有必要遵循目的限制、必要性、区分对待等原则对刑事诉讼领域的个人信息权予以适当限制。在此基础上,可以提出刑事诉讼中个人信息权行使的四方面考量因素,并由此确立个人信息权行使的方式及其救济途径,以实现个人信息权在刑事诉讼领域的良性发展。

个人信息保护禁令建构研究

时下个人信息权益保护链条有断裂现象,事后诉讼救济正在司法摸索中,然而事前救济路径呈现闭塞状态,个人信息侵害具有区别于传统人格权损害的特性,亟须构建一种崭新有效的事前救济制度,即“个人信息保护禁令”。其可行性体现在“个人信息保护禁令”可以比照人身安全保护令定性和构建,并且可以依据个人信息敏感度分层动态适用。在此基础上对个人信息保护禁令之申请条件、请求内容、效力期限进行逐一建构。

个人信用信息异议权保护研究

个人信用信息异议权在保障个人信用信息权益层面发挥着重要作用,但在个人信用信息异议权的立法中存在异议处理程序不完善、不良信息保存规则不合理、信息处理者事先告知义务缺失以及举证责任规定不一致等问题。为解决上述问题,应在结合我国实际情况的基础上借鉴域外有益经验,完善异议处理程序,细化异议处理机制,确保个人信息主体能够充分行使个人信用信息异议权。

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。

《个人信息保护法》第50条(个人信息权利行使保障机制)评注

《个人信息保护法》第50条规定了个人信息权利行使的保障机制,其规范目的在于保障以知情同意为核心的信息自决权得以实现。个人信息权利行使保障机制存在双重结构:一重是以个人信息处理者为义务主体搭建的个人信息权利行使保障机制,包括权利行使申请的受理与处理机制,这一机制应当符合便捷性的要求;另一重是对保障机制的保障和兜底,以有关监管部门和法院等为救济主体,在保障机制失灵时借助国家强制力实现权利救济。为了实现保护个人信息权益和避免过度加重信息处理者成本之间的平衡,第50条在对个人信息处理者保障个人信息权利行使的义务作出原则性规定的同时,也赋予其特殊情形下的拒绝权以豁免此种义务。权利行使保障机制需要从请求受理机制、身份核查机制、请求处理机制和衔接机制四个方面进行具体的构建与完善。

侵犯个人信息行为的刑法全流程规制模式研究

在个人信息行为规制方面,我国前置法与刑法之间存在明显差异,前置法通过处理规则的设计实现了全流程规制,而刑法只能对部分不法处理行为进行惩治。此种规范格局导致法律难以衔接并形成刑法保护的盲区,不利于全面保护个人信息权益。对此,应提倡个人信息的刑法全流程规制模式,通过间接罪名适用法和法益量刑评价法对不同类型处理行为进行合理规制。通过理论维度和规范维度的证成,可以验证全流程规制模式具有可操作性。应当适用刑法合理规制非法收集行为和非法存储行为,保障前期阶段信息处理安全;适用刑法精准规制非法加工行为、非法使用行为和非法流转行为,保障中期阶段信息处理安全;运用刑法适度规制非法披露行为和非法删除行为,保障后期阶段信息处理安全。

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。

涉隐私行政处罚决定公开的挑战与回应

行政处罚决定公开是2021年《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》修订所增加的一项重要规定,是对“行政执法公示制度”改革成果的吸收,体现了行政处罚全过程公开的要求。行政处罚决定作为行政机关对行政相对人行为的负面评价,其公开将对行政相对人的隐私权、个人信息权、名誉权等产生不利影响。但在信息化时代,行政处罚决定公开是行政机关进行监管、强化惩戒效果和教育社会公众的重要手段,亦是实现公共预警、进行风险提示的有效举措。立足既有规范依据,对涉隐私行政处罚决定公开之判定应以不公开为原则、公开为例外。例外的判定还应结合过罚相当原则和比例原则,细化公共利益保护、当事人同意、惩戒效果强化之理由,同时禁止侮辱性公开,以明确隐私保护的界限。

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。