论隐私的法律保护范围

隐私权是自然人人格权的重要内容 ,但并不是所有的隐私都应得到法律的保护 ,法律保护的隐私的范围应严格限定为具有合法性的个人隐私。由于我国现行立法没有对隐私做出具体的规定 ,一方面使得公民的隐私权难以得到充分的法律保护 ;另一方面又有试图将隐私范围扩大化的倾向 ,并使隐私权超出合理的范围而与其他权利相冲突。     

网络隐私权立法保护探析

网络隐私权是在网络时代传统隐私权的一种延伸,由于隐私对民事主体日常生活而言具有重要意义,因此,网络环境下的隐私同样也应当受到立法机关和司法机关的重视.本文简要阐述了网络隐私权的产生和发展过程,对网络隐私权的内容、保护现状和进行立法保护的重要意义进行了说明.     

网络信息隐私权法律保护研究

网络信息隐私权是网络环境中产生的新问题.从隐私权涵义入手,阐述网络环境中隐私和隐私权的内容,分析国外网络信息隐私权保护现状,分析我国网络信息隐私权的保护情况,对法律保护模式及立法架构进行理性思考.     

网络时代我国隐私权立法的思考

本文结合欧美一些国家相关立法的对比研究,立足我国隐私权立法的现状,从制定个人数据保护法方面对我国隐私权立法提出一些初步设想。同时,还就电脑网络环境中个人数据的技术保护与法律保护的协调问题进行了探讨和研究。     

论私录视听资料的证据能力

未经当事人同意而录制的视听材料有可能涉及被录制者的隐私.之所以规定不得采用法律所禁止的方法收集视听资料,是为了保护当事人的隐私权.传统理论认为侵犯被录制者隐私权的私录资料不具有合法性.但隐私与隐私权并不相同,对私录资料证据能力的认识须从解释论与立法论的角度分别考虑.从解释论角度,如果私录资料侵犯了他人的隐私权,那么该证据资料便会因不具备合法性而被排除在诉讼之外;如果只涉及隐私而未侵犯隐私权,便可具有证据能力.而在立法论,那些即使侵犯了隐私权的私录资料也同样具有证据能力,可以作为认定案件事实的根据,但这并不妨碍隐私权人在本案诉讼结束之后对侵权人另行提起诉讼保护自己的隐私权.     

论网络隐私权及其法律保护

网络安全问题,正在使得人类隐私面临着前所未有的安全隐患。加强对网络隐私权的保护已经成为各国立法趋势。因而,在我国隐私权立法缺位的情况下,确立隐私权的法律地位并在此基础上对网络隐私权的保护机制进行建构已经成为当务之急。     

我国刑事诉讼中的隐私权保护——以刑事被追诉人为视角

我国刑事诉讼中的隐私权以宪法隐私权为根基,属于公法权利的范畴,涉及公民人身隐私、空间隐私、信息隐私几方面的利益.不同刑事诉讼模式下隐私权保护呈现不同特点.刑事被追诉人的隐私权保护为刑事诉讼中隐私权保护的主体内容,具体包括讯问、搜查、扣押、人身检查、技术侦查等强制措施中的隐私权保护以及备存资讯保存、管理中的隐私权保护.刑事被追诉人的隐私权保护遵循法律保留原则、比例原则和合目的性解释原则,实质性审查、非法证据排除、国家赔偿构成隐私权保护的具体途径.处于信息时代和反恐政策下的刑事诉讼隐私权保护正面临新的挑战.     

无线射频识别技术应用中的隐私法律问题研究

在信息时代的背景下,无线射频识别技术（Radio Frequency Identification,简称为RFID）为人们的生产和生活带来极大的便利。然而一刀双刃,RFID技术也必然会带来众多的冲击与隐忧,特别是对个人隐私权的侵害问题。因此,应当借鉴欧美的先进立法经验,建立RFID隐私保护的立法;逐渐强化以政府为主导的行业自律建设;并不断增强公民对RFID隐私权的自我保护意识。     

金融隐私权保护公权干预制度探析

伴随我国金融业的高速发展,消费者在金融交易关系中的个人隐私权受到威胁,当私法救济无法提供有效保障时,公权干预体现为国家相关公权力部门通过立法和监管提供政府救济。本文认为,应借鉴欧美法治国家的经验,立足于我国的实际情况,设立专门的金融消费者保护机构承担金融消费者保护职责,制定金融隐私权保护法律规范,同时可通过行政法规的形式制定《个人信息保护条例》,以法定程序制约公权干预。     

大数据时代金融隐私权法律保护研究

金融隐私权是传统隐私权在金融领域的延伸,其客体为金融信息、具有较浓郁的财产权性质、具有较强的积极权能、金融隐私权相当程度上依赖于金融机构提供保护措施.金融隐私权的特点使其在大数据时代极易成为被侵害的对象,并提出了加强金融隐私权法律保护的现实要求.我国现有相关法律法规存在法律住阶过低、重行政、刑事责任、轻民事责任等弊端,建议提高金融隐私权保护的立法层次、制定规范金融集团的法律、重构网络银行的法律责任.     

论网络隐私权的立法保护

在日新月异的高科技发展过程中,弘扬人的主体性,保障人格尊严、生活自由、个人权利之不可侵犯,是民法学与时俱进的使命。网络信息技术的飞速发展和广泛应用,在带给人们方便、快捷的生活方式和巨大商业利益的同时,也给人们隐私权的保护带来了新的挑战。实践中网上侵权事件,尤其是侵害网络隐私权的事件频繁发生,使得网络隐私权的立法保护成为理论和实践中的一个热点问题。本文通过研究以美国和欧盟为代表的两大立法模式以及目前我国在网络隐私权方面的立法状况,对构建我国网络隐私权立法保护体系提出了一些对策和建议。     

网络时代的隐私权──兼论美国和欧盟网络隐私权保护规则及其对我国的启示

随着网络和信息技术的快速发展,网络上的个人隐私权正在被严重地侵害,面对这种侵害,各国都致力于建立完善的网络隐私权法律保护体系。从比较研究的角度讨论美国和欧盟的网络隐私权立法保护模式和规则,并对我国网络隐私权的保护提出立法建议。     

试析网络时代下的隐私权保护

随着互联网的高速发展,个人隐私在网络空间的安全性受到了挑战,网络隐私权的保护问题日益凸显。本文在对网络隐私权的基本理论进行分析的基础上,结合我国隐私权和网络隐私权的立法现状及存在的问题,借鉴了以美国和欧盟为代表的两大网络隐私权的立法模式,提出了构建我国网络隐私权保护体系的相关对策和建议。     

Global Privacy Concerns and Regulation-- Is the United States a World Apart?

The regulatory approach to privacy protection taken by many foreign jurisdictions is markedly different from that of the United States. The European Union (EU) best illustrates the international approach with its comprehensive privacy directive that applies to all EU members. By contrast, the approach regarding data privacy in the United States has been to pass industry-specific laws and often only in response to public outcry over some privacy concern. These fundamental differences have been the source of some conflict in international commercial transacting. Now that the global community is committed to eliminating terrorism, it remains to be seen if these different attitudes toward privacy by the United States and much of the rest of the world will affect global attempts to weed out terrorists. This article discusses the constitutional basis for most US policy approaches to privacy regulation. The article explains how the US constitution is the source for most of the differences between the US and international regulatory approaches to information privacy. Finally, the discussion addresses how new issues regarding privacy in the war on terrorism may be addressed by US Constitutional law.     

Restoring Dignity and Harmony to United States-European Union Data Protection Regulation

Global data protection laws can be described, at best, as contradictory in philosophy and practice. The 2015 decision by the Court of Justice for the European Union declaring the mechanism for data transfer between the United States and European Union known as “Safe Harbor” invalid and the criticism of its replacement, Privacy Shield, is representative of the conflict in this area. Such contention often stems from the differences in privacy rationales and theories of the United States and European Union. This article examines the recent developments in data protection regulations, and makes the argument that issues such as data protection, and specifically data shared with intelligence agencies, should be analyzed through the privacy principle of dignity and that the law of confidentiality should be applied to data protection cases, thereby instilling more harmony into the data privacy approaches of the United States and the European Union.     

Pondering personal privacy: a pragmatic approach to the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy in the information age

As technology with surveillance capacities has advanced, the debate over the rights of the citizenry to be free from governmental breaches of personal privacy has intensified. Within the United States, government actions legally challenged as intrusions into personal privacy have been analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, but Supreme Court rulings in such cases lack a clear and consistent rationale. Additionally, while more than a dozen federal privacy statutes have been enacted, each piece of legislation pertains to a specific type of information (e.g. driver’s license information, education records, and financial records). There is no overarching federal legislation which protects the individual’s private affairs from warrantless government inspection. A key issue underlying the scope of the debate and the variation in court decisions and public policies pertinent to invasions of privacy by government agencies is the lack of a clear and cogent definition of ‘privacy.’ By means of a review of the evolution of legal protections of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and a review of the evolution of technology with surveillance applications, it is suggested that there is a need for a sound operational definition of privacy. As a starting point for an informed and pragmatic dialogue on this matter, an operational definition of privacy built upon extant case and statutory law is provided.     

The Power of EU Collective Action: The Impact of EU Data Privacy Regulation on US Business Practice

Contemporary critiques of globalisation processes often focus on the potential levelling of regulatory standards and the export by the United States of neoliberal norms of deregulation and market facilitation. This paper, in contrast, examines the extra-jurisdictional impact of EU regulatory policy on the behaviour of foreign private parties, even in powerful states such as the United States. Shaffer finds that the threat of curtailing access to the EU's large market provides the EU with leverage. By acting collectively, EU Member States can magnify the impact of European policy on US business practice and enhance EU Member State clout in the negotiation of de jure and de facto foreign standards. The site of analysis is the current dispute between the United States and the European Union over the provision of 'adequate' data privacy protection in accordance with the EU Directive on data privacy. The paper explores the many ways in which the Directive affects US practice through changing the stakes of US players – including regulators, businesses, privacy advocates, lawyers and privacy service providers – and thereby shifting the playing field in the United States on which competing interest groups clash. In examining the interaction of EU law, US practice and international trade rules, the author finds that WTO law, rather than constraining the Directive's extra-jurisdictional impact, provides the EU with a shield against US retaliatory threats, thereby facilitating a trading up of data privacy standards. The paper concludes by examining the conditions under which cross-border exchange can lead to a leveraging up of social protections: the desire for firms to expand their markets, Member States' collective bargaining power buttressed by market clout, the nature of luxury goods, the externalities of foreign under-regulation legitimising EU intervention, and the constraints of supranational trade rules.     

论意思自治在网络隐私权侵权领域的适用

《涉外民事关系法律适用法》极大程度的完善了涉外侵权领域的法律适用规则,它首次规定了意思自治在一般侵权中的适用,但是在网络隐私权侵权上却坚守了被侵权人经常居所地原则。通过理论分析,以及对国内外立法和司法实践的考察,认为意思自治也应当适用与网络隐私权侵权领域。     

Information Privacy Protection in the New Chinese Civil Code: Priority or Replacement?

The right to privacy has been developed through judicial practice and has evolved from “the protection of the right to reputation” to “privacy interest” then to “privacy right.” The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China (2020) clarifies the right to information privacy and the right to personal information as two independent personality rights and establishes a privacy priority protection mechanism for private information in civil law. The comparative efficiency of the right to personal information may mean that the protection of the right to information privacy is weakened or even replaced by the right to personal information. The uncertainty and fragmentation of private information also creates a wide gray space for judicial decisions. The development from traditional privacy right to information privacy right and personal information right is generally positive and shows the active legal response to the protection of private information in multiple ways. However, clarifications and systematization are required to increase the effectiveness of such protections.