隐私权保护视角下的“人肉搜索”法律限制

"人肉搜索"本身只是一种搜索方式,具有中立性,但是"人肉搜索"存在侵犯他人隐私,泄漏他人个人信息的可能,因此需要对"人肉搜索"一分为二地看待,对于一般的"人肉搜索"行为,不应禁止,但是同时应该将"人肉搜索"置于隐私权保护的视角下进行考察,对于侵犯个人隐私,泄漏个人信息的"人肉搜索"行为,应该予以禁止,满足私权利保护的需要。     

对“人肉搜索”刑法规制的思考

人肉搜索最早诞生于2001年的猫扑论坛,有广义和狭义之分,其并不必然侵犯公民个人隐私和个人信息。人肉搜索本身不存在是否犯罪的问题,我国刑法对严重侵犯公民个人隐私和公民个人信息的人肉搜索已有相关规定,没有必要将人肉搜索的入刑予以单独规定,只有当行为人采取人肉搜索的方式侵犯了他人隐私或个人信息,情节严重时才涉及纳入刑法规制的问题。     

对“人肉搜索”刑法规制的思考

＂人肉搜索＂最早诞生于2001年的猫扑论坛,有广义和狭义之分,其并不必然侵犯公民个人隐私和个人信息。＂人肉搜索＂本身不存在是否犯罪的问题,我国刑法对严重侵犯公民个人隐私和公民个人信息的＂人肉搜索＂已有相关规定,没有必要将＂人肉搜索＂的入刑予以单独规定,只有当行为人采取＂人肉搜索＂的方式侵犯了他人隐私或个人信息,情节严重时才涉及纳入刑法规制的问题。     

“人肉搜索”与隐私权的保护

如今当红的“人肉搜索”风潮虽在一定程度上体现了民众追求社会公平公正的意识,满足了公民对信息批露公开公正的要求,但在“人肉搜索”中公开的个人信息,属于隐私权的范畴,“人肉搜索”过程中的不适当的行为很容易侵犯到他人的隐私权.本文通过对“人肉搜索”现象及隐私权界定的分析,探讨了“人肉搜索”侵权案件的法律适用依据以及司法救济途径,简析如何把“人肉搜索”这把双刃剑收为己用,真正做到对隐私权的保护.     

“人肉搜索”的罪与罚

8月25日,部分全国人大常委会组成人员在分组审议刑法修正案(七)草案时,认为保护公民个人信息,需要追究网络人肉搜索者的刑事责任。有人提出,网上通缉、人肉搜索泄露公民姓名、家庭住址、个人电话等基本信息,同样是严重侵犯公民基本权益的行为,其造成的危害甚至比出售公民个人信息更为严重,因此建议将人肉搜索行为在刑法中予以规范。     

略论“人肉搜索”的刑事规制

人肉搜索是一种借助网络平台寻找具体的人或事的搜索方式,其通过网络对特定个体的信息公开,使这些信息处于不特定多数人可知的状态,使个体的隐私权受到侵犯。从现行立法来看,人肉搜索的部分行为类型可以成立诽谤罪、侮辱罪或国家机关等工作人员出售或非法提供公民个人信息罪。     

“人肉搜索”的罪与罚

8月25日，部分全国人大常委会组成人员在分组审议刑法修正案（七）草案时，认为保护公民个人信息，需要追究网络“人肉搜索”者的刑事责任。全国人大常委会委员朱志刚提出，“网上通缉”、“人肉搜索”泄露公民姓名、家庭住址、个人电话等基本信息，同样是严重侵犯公民基本权益的行为，其造成的危害甚至比出售公民个人信息更为严重，因此建议将“人肉搜索”行为在《刑法》中予以规范。     

从“人肉搜索”看隐私权的法律保护

＂人肉搜索＂产生了一系列的法律与道德问题,几乎已成为侵犯公民隐私权的代名词。本文从民法角度,首先对隐私权的概念进行了简单介绍,并分析了人肉搜索对公民隐私权的具体侵犯。在此基础上,文中指出了我国隐私权立法滞后的现状。最后,结合我国实际,提出了在民法体系下给与隐私权专门保护、健全隐私侵权的法律救济、注重平衡隐私权与知情权等措施来完善我国隐私权的法律保护。     

论网络环境中的隐私权保护——以“人肉搜索第一案”为视角

《侵权责任法》以列举的方式将隐私权确定为一项基本民事权利,人肉搜索公开个人信息涉及侵权法上的隐私权保护。人肉搜索第一案的终审判决表明,网络环境中的个人隐私同样受到法律保护。本文首先对该案进行简要回顾并阐述人肉搜索的社会功能定位,然后针对网络环境中隐私权保护所涉及的理论问题进行分析,并对《侵权责任法》中的相关条款加以评述。     

试论民法法域下对人肉搜索侵权的保护

人肉搜索作为一种网上流行的搜索方式,其作为一种技术存在本身并不违法,只有当人肉搜索超过一定限度侵犯了他人隐私权后,才属于违法行为。由于我国相关法律未对人肉搜索造成的侵权行为进行详细规定,本文通过界定人肉搜索概念并探讨人肉搜索体现的权利和侵犯的权利,从而提出如何完善规制人肉搜索侵权行为的建议。     

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。     

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.     

隐私权的经济分析

隐私本质上是私人信息,隐私权是个人控制其私人信息的权利。无论隐私是否涉及到个人名誉,从对隐私的成本——收益分析来看,在权利的初始配置的意义上,都应当将控制私人信息的权利配置给信息生产者而形成隐私权。隐私权不能仅仅囿于人格权的范畴,而应该向其财产权性质方面着力发挥。将私人信息的权利配置给个人,个人就能够控制其私人信息从而形成对其私人信息的财产权,进而实现对隐私权更为切实的保护之目的。     

Blood rights: the body and information privacy

Genetic and other medical technology makes blood, human tissue and other bodily samples an immediate and accessible source of comprehensive personal and health information about individuals. Yet, unlike medical records, bodily samples are not subject to effective privacy protection or other regulation to ensure that individuals have rights to control the collection, use and transfer of such samples. This article examines the existing coverage of privacy legislation, arguments in favour of baseline protection for bodily samples as sources of information and possible approaches to new regulation protecting individual privacy rights in bodily samples.     

民法典框架下个人数据财产法益的体系构建

从欧盟个人数据保护相关立法的变迁可以发现,个人数据从隐私权保护的传统模式开始出现向财产权保护模式过渡的迹象。这并不意味着数据产业界的新机会,而是调节数据主体与数据控制者之间日益失衡关系的新尝试。财产权保护模式有着隐私权保护模式无可比拟的优势,却也存在权利定性和范围界定上的困难。与非个人数据更为鲜明的财产属性不同,个人数据上的民事权益应该构建为一个以数据主体的财产利益为基础、以数据控制者对个人数据的占有利益为核心的财产法益体系。数据控制者及其义务作为个人数据财产法益体系的中心,才能在保护数据主体和发挥数据效用之间保持平衡。     

配偶权、忠实义务与隐私权保护——承认配偶权前提下的分析

隐私权是一种具体的人格权,是绝对权,配偶权是一种身份权利,是相对权,其权利内涵不包含忠实义务,法律对配偶权的救济只能是禁止一方把意志强加于另一方.因此,不能以侵犯配偶权为由否认侵权人的隐私权,不能以侵权人违背了道德准则而否认其应受隐私权保护.法律可以对婚外性行为予以调整,但配偶权的设置并不能完成这一任务.     

基因技术与隐私权的保护

基因技术的发展所揭示的人自身的秘密在现代社会已不是一个纯技术问题 ,而是一个影响广泛的社会问题和法律问题。当代民法隐私权制度应将个人基因信息纳入保护范围 ,明确个人对自己基因信息隐私的知晓同意权、保密权以及对他人非法搜集、利用个人基因信息的禁止权等基本权利 ,同时规定侵犯他人基因隐私权的民事责任 ,以回应生物技术的发展对传统民商法的挑战     

民事裁判文书上网公开的边界问题探究——基于司法知情权与个人隐私权的冲突与平衡的考量

裁判文书公开是司法公开的核心,裁判文书上网公开又是目前裁判文书公开的重要形式。虽然裁判文书上网公开的普遍性和便捷性能满足公众对于司法知情权的需求,但不可避免在一定程度上会对相关人员的隐私权造成侵害。互联网的广泛应用为裁判文书公开提供了良好的载体,但也使得知情权与隐私权的碰撞更为激烈。通过比例原则和可分割性原则,对于涉及个人隐私的不同情况进行区别对待,并赋予当事人充分的程序保障权,以此对裁判文书上网公开中的知情权与隐私权的冲突予以平衡。     

The legal construction of personal information protection and privacy under the Chinese Civil Code

Personal information protection and privacy interact in diverse ways, especially in the contemporary information age. Although books and articles have focused on this topic, the new tendencies of worldwide legislation and judicial practice bring challenges, as the legal construction of personal information protection and privacy differs from culture to culture and time to time. In 2017, the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (“the General Provisions of the Chinese Civil Code” hereafter)¹ (expired) addresses the legal concepts of personal information protection and the right to privacy simultaneously, to which this article refers as the dual model, differing from the one-dimensional mode of privacy protection before. Subsequently, the “The Right to Privacy and the Protection of Personal Information,” a chapter of the newly issued Civil Code of the People's Republic of China's (“the Chinese Civil Code” hereafter), ascertains the dual model and details related provisions. It has been dubbed a landmark ruling of China's personal information protection, greatly boosting the modernization of China's civil system.Despite the many articles that discuss approaches to China's civil protections, little attention has been given to the fundamental question concerning what exactly encompasses the personal information protection and privacy to which these laws refer. Based on the regulations and applicability of the General Provisions of the Chinese Civil Code and the Chinese Civil Code, this paper explores the legal construction of personal information protection and privacy under Chinese legal orders, including the differences, similarities, and interplay between the two rights. By distinguishing the legal value, contents and remedial approaches, this paper concludes that the two rights are distinct but overlap. On one side, personal information protection is elevated to the status of a separate civil right in the legal context of China, rather than part of privacy. On the other side, tailored regulations should be establish according to the criteria of the nature of information, the extent of information processing, and the elements of damage when confronted with overlaps in the two rights in judicial practice. Thus, this paper provides a perspective from which to clarify the approaches to civil protection of personal information and privacy in China and a reference model for enactment of the Chinese Personal Information Protection Law in the future.     

There's more to it than data protection – Fundamental rights,privacy and the personal/household exemption in the digital age

Heated debates triggered by the plans to introduce the “right to be forgotten” exposed problems the all-encompassing application of rules on data processing may cause in practice. The purpose of this article is to discuss the compatibility of these rules with the rapidly evolving online environment in the context of the need to guarantee human rights on the internet. The author argues that there is an imbalance in the protection of individual rights online. It results from the limited application of personal/household exception and, in general, the narrow understanding of the concept of online privacy. According to the author in order for data protection laws to flesh out not only the fundamental right of data protection, but also play a mediatory role in balancing other rights, the application of the personal/household exception should be extended to include private online activities. This would reflect the complex character of the very concept of online privacy, diversity of actors and activities shaping online “territories”, as well as the increasingly heterogeneous fabric of the Web.