个人信息权的宪法(学)证成——基于对区分保护论和支配权论的反思

《个人信息保护法》最终纳入“根据宪法”条款,表征着个人信息保护法律体系在底层逻辑上的更动。民法学上权利与利益的区分保护原理,难以适用于整个合宪性法秩序。应将个人信息权确立为宪法位阶的基本权利,并以基本权利作为针对国家的主观防御权和辐射一切法领域的客观价值秩序的原理,协调个人信息保护的私法机制和公法机制。通过对人权条款笼罩下的通信权和人格尊严条款的解释,可以在学理上证立“基本权利束”性质的个人信息权。但其具体保护则应分别归入不同基本权利条款,作出区分化、差异化的多层次构造。个人信息保护的支配权思维有其局限,告知同意模式的式微是重要表现。应将个人信息权的规范目标调整为人格的自由发展,指向免于他人的人格干预。从支配权到人格发展权的思维转换,有助于规制对已收集信息的不当利用、破除“信息茧房”、缓和个人信息保护与利用之间的紧张,以及在“个人—平台—国家”的三方关系中有效保护个人的自决,同时为数据产业保留发展空间。     

个人信息的双重属性与行为主义规制

个人信息的法律保护依赖于公法对个人信息的定位。在公法与公法理论上,有两种看待个人信息的观点。一种观点认为个人信息权是一种基本权利,个人信息应当受到法律的确权保护;另一种观点则将个人信息视为他人言论自由的对象,个人信息的自由获取与使用受到法律保护。但这两种观点都无法从整体上理解个人信息,个人信息权的观点忽视了个人信息的自由流通属性与公共属性,而个人信息作为言论自由对象的观点则忽视了个人信息背后的多重权益。个人信息兼具个体属性与社会流通属性,应当确立一种"个人信息相关权益被保护权"。从个人信息的双重属性出发,个人信息保护应当在具体场景中确立个人信息收集与利用行为的合理边界。基于场景的行为主义规制更为符合个人信息保护的根本特征,也将为中国的个人信息保护提供一条超越欧美的中国道路。     

捍卫权利模式——个人信息保护中的公共性与权利

个人信息权和个人信息受保护权是两种相对立的模式,学界通常认为个人信息权赋予个人排他性的支配权,这与个人信息的公共性相矛盾。个人信息的公共性并不必然反对权利模式。一种广义的公共性包含着个人信息所负载的公共利益,个人信息的公开化也是网络时代个人和商业交往的必要前提,但这并不意味着要否定个人信息保护的权利模式。公共利益具有多样性,正是某些公共利益支持了权利。权利所蕴涵的主张权确保了人的尊严和自由,这也是个人信息保护法的立法宗旨;个人信息受保护权做不到这一点,它不具有义务指向性。但在立法模式上,个人信息保护法要以义务性规范或禁止性规范为主,这是由网络空间个人信息的性质决定的。     

论个人信息保护限制的立法范式与体系逻辑——以应对突发疫情事件为例

对个人信息保护进行适当限制是平衡个人权益与公共利益的必然选择。基于特定的紧急背景在公法中设定个人信息保护限制,虽有助于集中力量驱逐疫情,但往往忽视对作为私权客体性的个人信息对象考察,容易侵犯个人信息法益。当前我国民法典对个人信息保护的限制规定虽符合疫情防控下个人信息保护限制的紧急需求,但缺失对权利限制的一般条款以及合理实施的进一步解释,亟待更精细的规范进行界定。这表明应对重大疫情防控时,我国立法在个人信息保护的合理限制问题时出现了制度缺位。原因在于,无论是公法还是私法都无法独自处理好疫情防控下的个人信息保护限制问题。公、私法二元性质个人信息保护立法框架契合数据治理理论的内在属性,也是风险社会中公私法协力的必然要求。重大疫情背景并不决定个人信息保护限制的二元范式,这是由个人信息的属性本身所决定的。公法和私法分别规定个人信息保护限制规则均具有部分正当性来源,但从法律的实现效果以及比较立法趋势来看,将个人信息保护限制置于一部公私复合的个人信息保护法之中更符合时代发展。文章最后在该立法范式引导下,反思了当前个人信息保护限制立法体系逻辑,并提出了个人信息保护限制立法完善的建议。     

Editor’s Note

In the context of today’s big data and cloud computing, the global flow of data has become a powerful driver for international economic and investment growth. The EU and the U.S. have created two different paths for the legal regulation of the cross-border flow of personal data due to their respective historical traditions and realistic demands. The requirements for data protection have shown significant differences. The EU advocates localization of data and firmly restricts cross-border flow of personal data. The U.S. tends to protect personal data through industry self-regulation and government law enforcement. At the same time, these two paths also merge and supplement with each other. Based on this, China needs to learn from the legal regulatory paths of the EU and the US, respectively, to establish a legal idea that places equal emphasis on personal data protection and the development of the information industry. In terms of domestic law, the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China needs to be improved and supplemented by relevant supporting legislation to improve the operability of the law; the industry self-discipline guidelines should be established; and various types of cross-border data need to be classified and supervised. In terms of international law, it is necessary to participate in international cooperation based on the priority of data sovereignty and promote the signing of bilateral, multilateral agreements, and international treaties on the cross-border flow of personal data.     

社会风险控制抑或个人权益保护——理解个人信息保护法的两个维度

个人信息在《民法典》中被确认为一种人格法益,在理论和立法上确立了我国个人信息的私法保护面向。个人权益保护成为构建和理解个人信息保护的重要维度和线索。由于个人信息保护的公共目标和功能可能被个人私益保护的进路所覆盖或消解,因此有必要将社会风险控制作为个人信息保护的重要维度来对待。社会风险控制一直是电子化时代个人数据保护的基础性目的,它对于个人信息保护的相关理论和制度具有很强的解释力和动态构建作用。社会风险控制和个人权益保护两种进路在相关基础问题上出现分歧,如个人信息与隐私的基础关系、一般性保护与场景化保护以及本权与保护权的关系等。在《个人信息保护法》实施过程中,社会风险控制进路有助于合理解读和执行法律,把握风险大小与控制措施的合理匹配,以及在平衡相关立法价值的前提下,释放信息的流动性。     

Financial Intelligence Units: Reflections on the applicable data protection legal framework

Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) are key players in the current Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) legal system. FIUs are specialised bodies positioned between private financial institutions and states’ law enforcement authorities, what renders them a crucial middle link in the chain of information exchange between the private and public sectors. Considering that a large share of this information is personal data, its processing must meet the minimum data protection standards. Yet, the EU data protection legal framework is composed of two main instruments, i.e. the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED), which provide different thresholds for the protection of personal data. The aim of this paper is to clarify the applicable data protection legal regime for the processing of personal data by FIUs for AML/CFT purposes. To that end, the paper provides an overview of the nature and goals of AML/CFT policy and discusses the problem of the diversity of existing FIU models. Further, it proposes a number of arguments in favour of and against the possibility of applying either the GDPR or LED to the processing of personal data by the FIUs and reflects on how convincingly these arguments can be used depending on the specificities of a given FIU model.     

Data protection law beyond identifiability? Atmospheric profiles,nudging and the Stratumseind Living Lab

The deployment of pervasive information and communication technologies (ICTs) within smart city initiatives transforms cities into extraordinary apparatuses of data capture. ICTs such as smart cameras, sound sensors and lighting technology are trying to infer and affect persons’ interests, preferences, emotional states, and behaviour. It should be no surprise then that contemporary legal and policy debates on privacy in smart cities are dominated by a debate focused on data and, therefore, on data protection law. In other words, data protection law is the go-to legal framework to regulate data processing activities within smart cities and similar initiatives. While this may seem obvious, a number of important hurdles might prevent data protection law to be (successfully) applied to such initiatives. In this contribution, we examine one such hurdle: whether the data processed in the context of smart cities actually qualifies as personal data, thus falling within the scope of data protection law. This question is explored not only through a theoretical discussion but also by taking an illustrative example of a smart city-type initiative – the Stratumseind 2.0 project and its living lab in the Netherlands (the Stratumseind Living Lab; SLL). Our analysis shows that the requirement of ‘identifiability’ might be difficult to satisfy in the SLL and similar initiatives. This is so for two main reasons. First, a large amount of the data at stake do not qualify as personal data, at least at first blush. Most of it relates to the environment, such as, data about the weather, air quality, sound and crowding levels, rather than to identified or even likely identifiable individuals. This is connected to the second reason, according to which, the aim of many smart city initiatives (including the SLL) is not to identify and target specific individuals but to manage or nudge them as a multiplicity – a combination of the environment, persons and all of their interactions. This is done by trying to affect the ‘atmosphere’ on the street. We thus argue that a novel type of profiling operations is at stake; rather than relying on individual or group profiling, the SLL and similar initiatives rely upon what we have called ‘atmospheric profiling’. We conclude that it remains highly uncertain, whether smart city initiatives like the SLL actually process personal data. Yet, they still pose risks for a wide variety of rights and freedoms, which data protection law is meant to protect, and a need for regulation remains.     

Who owns our data?

The layman's answer to the question posted in the title to this paper lies in the question itself. The common understanding of people when they talk about information about themselves is that it is indeed “theirs”. Until relatively recently, the law has been content to remain agnostic on the subject. The Common Law in general and English Courts in particular have traditionally avoided philosophical debates about the nature of things, preferring to develop concepts and principles from the results of cases decided on specific facts and circumstances. This approach has been acceptable while we have been winding our way gently up the foothills of the Information Age, but now that we see the towering peak of Big Data standing before us, covered by the ubiquitous Cloud, it is necessary to make a critical examination of some of the basic assumptions which we have hitherto carried with us about the way in which the law should treat rights over personal information. This paper will argue that the correct approach which the law should adopt is a proprietary one. That is to say that the protection of the economic value inherent in personal information should be grounded in property rights acknowledged by the law.     

Towards a Global Regulatory Framework for Cross-Border Data Flows—Fundamental Concerns and the China’s Approach

Cross-border data flows not only involve cross-border trade issues, but also severely challenge personal information protection, national data security, and the jurisdiction of justice and enforcement. As the current digital trade negotiations could not accommodate these challenges, China has initiated the concept of secure cross-border data flow and has launched a dual-track multi-level regulatory system, including control system for overseas transfer of important data, system of crossborder provision of personal information, and system of cross-border data request for justice and enforcement. To explore a global regulatory framework for cross-border data flows, legitimate and controllable cross-border data flows should be promoted, supervision should be categorized based on risk concerned, and the rule of law should be coordinated at home and abroad to promote system compatibility. To this end, the key is to build a compatible regulatory framework, which includes clarifying the scope of important data to define the “Negative List” for preventing national security risks, improving the cross-border accountability for protecting personal information rights and interests to ease pre-supervision pressure, and focusing on data access rights instead of data localization for upholding the jurisdiction of justice and enforcement.     

论企业数据权益的法律保护——基于数据法律性质的分析

在互联网与大数据时代,数据已经成为企业的重要资产,对企业数据权益应当进行合理保护。但对企业数据不宜进行绝对化与排他性的财产权保护,因为此种保护违背数据的基本特征——数据并不具有排他性与竞争性。保护企业数据权益应当以促进数据共享为目标,企业数据的合理保护应当有利于促进数据共享。对企业数据应当进行类型化与场景化保护。对于非公开的企业数据,应当提供商业秘密保护;对于半公开的数据库数据,应当提供类似欧盟的数据库特殊权利保护;对于公开的网络平台数据,应当采取竞争法保护,避免恶性搭便车行为。法律还应当为企业主动公开的数据提供特殊类型的保护,允许企业设置白名单与黑名单。此外,法律也应当协调保护个人数据与企业数据,在优先保护个人数据的前提下,实现个人数据隐私期待与企业数据权益的共赢。     

个人信息权的体系化解释——兼论《个人信息保护法》的公法属性

《个人信息保护法》是数字时代个人信息保护的基本法。它采取了将个人信息权作为新兴公法权利的思路,确立了完整的个人信息权利保护体系,在个人信息保护问题上和《民法典》一起形成了公私法共同协力的进路。《个人信息保护法》以权利束的方式规定了个人信息主体的知情权、决定权、查阅权、复制权、更正权、删除权、可携带权和信息权利救济权等。《个人信息保护法》从立法依据、权利体系、条文设计和规制措施上都体现出鲜明的公法属性,这也可以从基本权利的双重面向和个人信息国家保护义务得到理论上的证成。这部法律是数字时代公法秩序的基石,它对公法边界的形塑仍需通过其实施来确立。     

个人信息保护立法理念探究——在信息保护与信息流通之间

个人信息保护法应当是对个人信息进行合理利用与恰当保护相结合的法律.欧洲政府和美国政府采取了不同的路径来保护个人信息.欧洲更为重视从权利角度出发保护个人信息,美国则更注重从信息流通的角度出发促进个人信息的自由流通.个人信息保护的"权利保护论"与"自由流通论",以及因为对上述理论的解释与侧重不同而产生的欧洲的国家立法主导与美国的企业自律的个人信息保护模式,均有其合理与可取的方面.我国的个人信息保护法在立法理念上应当兼顾个人信息的"权利保护"与个人信息的"自由流通",以达到二者之间的和谐与平衡.     

作为劳动基准的个人信息保护

劳动者的个人信息保护问题存在特殊之处,具体表现为资强劳弱和人格从属性背景下知情同意规则的失灵、工作数字化后劳动者被透视和被操控的风险、有组织生产的合作关系中个人信息处理的需要,因此不能完全适用《个人信息保护法》的一般规则。劳动基准法已经纳入立法规划,在其中就劳动者个人信息保护做专门规定,这是对数字时代人权保护新挑战的回应,对于其他劳动基准的实现也有重要意义。在劳动关系中仅遵循私法路径不足以保护个人信息,还需要配备公权力保障,劳动基准法的双重保护机制也契合了这一需求。作为劳动关系中保护个人信息的特别法,劳动基准法的相应条款应该考虑如何对一般规则进行调整,包括限制知情同意规则的适用,满足人力资源管理的正当需求,修改删除权、可携带权和自动化决策条款,协调主管机构、救济方式和法律责任。由于"必需"是一个语境依赖型概念,将来还应该通过配套文件来规制工作场所的视频监控等典型的应用场景。     

劳动者个人信息处理中同意的适用与限制

劳动者个人信息处理中同意的内在困境比其他社会关系都更为鲜明。应打破劳动法、民法与个人信息保护法的理论藩篱,重视对劳动者同意的适用及体系性限制。劳动者信息处理的合法性来源存在两种替代个人同意的适用,分别为"订立或履行合同所必需"的默示同意及以集体合同或劳动规章制度为载体的集体合意。为促进信息利用,应允许雇主在超越"订立或履行劳动合同所必需"时,以劳动者明示同意作为信息处理的合法性来源。无论同意的性质为默示同意、集体合意或明示同意,均应强调对同意自治性的审查,利用"目的限制"与比例原则,丰富"合法、正当、必要"体系性限制的内涵,平衡劳动者个人信息权益保护与信息利用,从而纾解劳动关系下同意的困境。     

Location privacy: The challenges of mobile service devices

Adding to the current debate, this article focuses on the personal data and privacy challenges posed by private industry's use of smart mobile devices that provide location-based services to users and consumers. Directly relevant to personal data protection are valid concerns about the collection, retention, use and accessibility of this kind of personal data, in relation to which a key issue is whether valid consent is ever obtained from users. While it is indisputable that geo-location technologies serve important functions, their potential use for surveillance and invasion of privacy should not be overlooked. Thus, in this study we address the question of how a legal regime can ensure the proper functionality of geo-location technologies while preventing their misuse. In doing so, we examine whether information gathered from geo-location technologies is a form of personal data, how it is related to privacy and whether current legal protection mechanisms are adequate. We argue that geo-location data are indeed a type of personal data. Not only is this kind of data related to an identified or identifiable person, it can reveal also core biographical personal data. What is needed is the strengthening of the existing law that protects personal data (including location data), and a flexible legal response that can incorporate the ever-evolving and unknown advances in technology.     

个人数据安全的法律保护模式——从数据确权的视角切入

个人数据权益的多元性,决定了个人数据在不同场景中的权属不同,这意味着对不同权属性质的个人数据,提供的法律保护模式也不同。我国对个人数据的法律保护模式有三种:财产权保护模式、人格权保护模式和平台保护模式。鉴于当前我国数据确权的制度安排尚未完成、数据的人格权保护没有得到公益救济、数据利益的损害赔偿无法实现,有必要对不同权属性质的个人数据作出有针对性的调整方案:在方法论上应突破私法或公法的思维局限,在立法论与数据应用实践层面,对现有的个人数据保护模式作出相应的调整,通过商业秘密保护模式拓宽数据财产权的保护路径,利用个人数据场景化保护模式弥补人格权保护模式的虚置,利用平台保护模式优化数据安全法律保护的制度设计。     

数据跨境流动规制中的“长臂管辖”——对欧盟GDPR的原旨主义考察

欧盟《一般数据保护条例》是个人数据保护的重要立法之一,而其中的“长臂管辖”条款是最有特色并颇受争议的规则。从内在视角来看,欧盟语境下个人数据的特殊含义和重要地位,是“长臂管辖”的正当性基础。而其在制度上形成内外联动的局面,是因为欧盟想扭转其在全球互联网和信息产业的劣势地位,并增强其在全球数据保护立法的话语权,同时更好地保护个人数据和国家安全。对此,中国未来的数据保护立法应结合自身数据产业的特点,明确立法旨意,形成内外联动,在国际互联网和数据治理中采取积极有为的态度,掌握该领域的话语权。     

论数据使用保护的国际知识产权制度

商业组织在全球范围内使用数据获得法律保护是数据经济进一步发展的基石。对数据使用的知识产权保护意味着保护“数据”的各种外在呈现形式,尤其是数据集合。数据经营者对数据经济的贡献、数据主权和数字人权带来的现实障碍提出了迫切要求。以德国、美国和日本为代表的主要国家对数据使用保护进行的知识产权立法为数据跨境流动相关制度研究提供了基础。世界贸易组织、世界知识产权组织以及欧盟对数据使用提供了现实保护,但是现有国际法律制度无法对大量存在的非独创性数据集合提供充分保护。其原因包括各国发展水平不一致、数据主权和个人数据保护受到更多关注、国际法碎片化发展趋势等。对此,应在数据相关制度和实践中坚持促进数据使用为指导原则;在TRIPs体系内构建非独创性数据集合制度,该制度在保护数据集合专有权的同时应注重平衡个人数据保护、数据主权和公众信息获取权。立足中国参与全球数据治理现状,中国应在著作权法体系下构建非独创性数据集合有限排他权,并完善相关立法和实施以促进跨境数据流动。     

Privacy,National Security,and Internet Economy: An Explanation of China's Personal Information Protection Legislation

With the development of the internet and the increasing role played by information technology in the economy, personal information protection has become one of the most significant legal and public policy problems. Since 2013, China has accelerated its legislation efforts towards protecting personal information. The Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China took effect on June 1, 2017. Legal scholars focus on the nature of personal information, discuss the necessity of enacting specific laws on protecting personal information, and attempt to propose relevant draft laws regarding personal information protection. Personal information protection, however, is not only a legal issue but also a political one. We need to look at the decision-making process about legislation on personal information protection in China. Why has China sped up its legislation on personal information protection since 2013? Is privacy, civil rights, or legal interest the main reason behind the legislation? Only after placing personal information protection legislation in a broader context, can we have a better understanding of the underlying logic and dynamics of personal information protection in China, and can perceive the potential content and possible future of these legislation. This paper argues that Internet industry development, the social consequences of personal information infringement, and national security are the main drivers of China’s personal information protection legislation.