浅议宪法对隐私权的保障及完善

随着科学技术的发展,人们进入信息时代,个人隐私受到侵犯的事件频频发生,对隐私权的保护也越来越引起人们的重视。当今世界有许多国家不仅在侵权法或普通法中对隐私权进行了保护,还在判例或成文法中确认了隐私权的宪法权利属性,从宪法高度保护个人隐私权,而相比之下我国法律对隐私权的保护仍不够完善,宪法中没有对隐私权的明确规定,只是间接对其进行了不完全保护。本文从宪法对隐私权进行保护的必要性及现状进行了分析,并从宪法法规、宪法效力及相关配套制度几方面提出了完善隐私权保障的措施。     

美国隐私权的宪法保护述评

美国隐私权的宪法保护建立在其独特的司法审查的基础上,有其独特的特色,不仅体现在通过最高法院对宪法的司法解释回应了公民权利运动对隐私权保护的要求,而且宪法对隐私权的保护具有开放性,虽然美国宪法对隐私权的保护受制于社会传统伦理道德和政府的政策,但是通过消极的个案判决方式从基本人权的角度确立了宪法对自决权意义上的隐私权的保护。     

论隐私权的宪法保护

我国宪法对隐私权的保护在目前还比较薄弱，我国宪法理论应该将隐私杈普遍化处理。同时，在原则上应将隐私权优先于与之相冲突的权利进行保护，对于与隐私权相冲突的权利，可以在个案中利用价值平衡进行保护。     

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.     

刑事侦查中隐私权保护的审查机制

侦查机关干预公民的宪法基本权利,必须事先取得法律的明确授权,并遵循比例原则的限制.随着科技的发展和更新,大量技术侦查手段虽未侵犯公民的人身自由权、财产权等宪法规定的基本权利,却侵入了个人的隐私权领域.对此,应当建立隐私权审查的保护机制,将干预公民隐私权的侦查措施纳入法治的视野.隐私权保护的审查机制应当分为两个阶段,印先审查干预行为是否侵入隐私权的保护领域,再审查干预行为是否具备正当化事由.     

论隐私权的宪法保护——以自媒体时代为分析背景

自媒体在彰显言论自由之对,也打开了一扇偷窥公民隐私之窗.在宪法视野下,隐私权已经超越部门法的疆域上升为一项基本人权.在自媒体时代,侵犯公民隐私权的特征表现为隐蔽性、侵财性、便捷性和严重性,隐私权的传统法律保护模式遭遇了新的挑战.宪法对公民隐私权加以保护有其合理性与必要性.隐私权的宪法保护路径在于明确隐私权是一项列举的人权,强化违宪审查制度的贯彻执行,并通过部门法落实和实施该项权利,建立一个由宪法统领的、由部门法具体实施的、多层级和全方位的立体保护架构.     

隐私权:从民事权利到宪法权利——兼议民事权利与宪法权利的关系

从历史的角度看,民法隐私权较早出现,而宪法隐私权直到20世纪60年代之后才相继为各国所确认。这样的发展顺序是否意味着宪法隐私权是由民法隐私权发展而来呢?通过对两项权利先起与后起原因的历史分析可知,两者并无直接的渊源关系,并且在事实上也表现出极大的差异。但是,两者在价值上又是同源的,两者的差异不过是隐私权价值在不同领域的体现。民法隐私权和宪法隐私权实际上是既相互独立,又在价值上相互关联的两种权利。民法隐私权和宪法隐私权之间关系的解读,为我们理解和把握民事权利与宪法权利关系提供了一个很好的实例。     

浅谈言论自由与隐私权的冲突——从宪法权利新分类的视角出发

言论自由与隐私权是两项非常重要的宪法权利。但随着社会的发展,尤其是网络时代的到来,使言论自由与隐私权的冲突日益凸显。本文通过分析二者在权利类别中的归属,从宪法权利新分类的角度,明确了言论自由与隐私权冲突的实质。希望使言论自由和隐私权得到充分保护的同时,减少冲突和侵害。     

对我国刑事诉讼中隐私权保护的几点思考

隐私权入宪,确立隐私权的地位是根本 从当今国际的趋势来看,隐私权正在被逐步确立为一项独立的人格权,将隐私权作为一宪法权利加以保护不仅是有关国际公约的要求,也是很多国家的一致做法.而我国宪法并未确立隐私权的独立权利地位,只是在第38条、第39条、第40条原则性地规定了公民人格尊严不受侵犯;公民住宅不受非法侵犯;公民的通信自由和通信秘密受法律保护的内容.这只是规定了与隐私权有关的相当少的一部分内容,并没有明确规定隐私权,因此在宪法中明确规定隐私权显得相当必要.只有这样刑事诉讼法保护隐私权才能切实做到.     

浅议宪法隐私权的确认

隐私权随着一些网络事件的热议,引起了社会各界广泛关注。确切的说,隐私权并未被我国宪法明示为一项公民权利,但是现行宪法中诸多条款都为隐私权的宪法保护提供了依据,完全可以通过对这些条款的解释,确认宪法隐私权。本文通过对现行宪法相关条款的解读,来确立作为公民基本权利一种的隐私权。     

搜查与隐私权保护——加拿大宪法与美国宪法第4修正案之比较

<加拿大权利与自由宪章>第8条赋予了公民反对不合理的搜查和扣押的权利.与美国宪法第4修正案的发展历程类似,经由加拿大最高法院的判例解释,<宪章>第8条确立了隐私权的宪法保护.基于对美国宪法判例的批判和借鉴,<宪章>第8条下的隐私权在判断标准、保护范围方面体现了本国特色.第8条下隐私权具备的丰富内涵,不仅得益于加拿大最高法院确立的隐私权旨在促进的诸项基本价值,也与加拿大较为宽泛的非法证据排除规则有关.     

Conundrums with penumbras: the right to privacy encompasses non-gamete providers who create preembryos with the intent to become parents

To date, five state high courts have resolved disputes over frozen preembryos. These disputes arose during divorce proceedings between couples who had previously used assisted reproduction and cryopreserved excess preembryos. In each case, one spouse wished to have the preembryos destroyed, while the other wanted to be able to use or donate them in the future. The parties in these cases invoked the constitutional right to privacy to argue for dispositional control over the preembryos; two of the five cases were resolved by relying on this right. The constitutional right to privacy protects intimate decisions involving procreation, marriage, and family life. However, when couples use donated sperm or ova to create preembryos, a unique circumstance arises: one spouse--the gamete provider--is genetically related to the preembryos and the other is not. If courts resolve frozen preembryo disputes that involve non-gamete providers based on the constitutional right to privacy, they should find that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the interests of both gamete and non-gamete providers. Individuals who create preembryos with the intent to become a parent have made an intimate decision involving procreation, marriage, and family life that falls squarely within the the right to privacy. In such cases, the couple together made the decision to create a family through the use of assisted reproduction, and the preembryos would not exist but for that joint decision. Therefore, gamete and non-gamete providers should be afforded equal constitutional protection in disputes over frozen preembryos.     

Data protection legislation: What is at stake for our society and democracy?

The author starts by questioning the main privacy challenges raised by our present and future information society viewed as a “global village”. Apart from a comparison with the traditional village of our parents, he identifies the two complementary and not dissociable facets of our privacy: the right to seclusion and the right to participate fully in our society. According to the first German Constitutional Court recognizing the right to informational self-determination as a new constitutional right, he underlines the need to analyse the data protection as a tool for ensuring both the citizens' dignity and our democracy.     

The Supreme Court's spring term: abortion, the right to die, and the decline of privacy rights

Wing analyzes the constitutional significance and the important long-term implications for health policy of three 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decisions: Hodgson v. Minnesota, Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. Hodgson and Ohio upheld state statutes requiring parental notification of a minor's impending abortion. Cruzan upheld a state court decision refusing to allow the family of a patient in a persistent vegetative state to discontinue life-sustaining treatment. Wing argues that these decisions reach far beyond "the abortion issue" or "the right to die." Not only have they narrowed the constitutional protection of individual privacy, but they allow states to regulate activities like abortion in a manner that indicates that the Court is prepared to repeal the notion that individual privacy is entitled to enhanced judicial protection.     

从“无私”到“隐私”——论我国隐私权观念之变

我国侵权责任法对隐私权的确认不是一个普通的法律事件,还是一个昭示时代精神转变的历史事件。在中国文化历史中,从宣扬＂无私＂到习惯＂疑私＂再到接受＂隐私＂,这是对人的自由的肯定。自由是当代法律的精神所在,也是隐私权制度的核心价值,换言之,隐私权就是自由生活的权利。     

The Right to Privacy: A Discourse-Theoretical Approach

The relative importance of the right to privacy in constitutional democracies is reconsidered on the basis of discourse theory. To this end the author does not regard privacy as an aim in itself but as a provider of freedom, and concentrates on the key role that freedom plays in discourse-theoretical constructions of constitutional democracies.     

In the Michigan Court of Appeals: People vs. Jack Kevorkian

HELD: There is no right to euthanasia within the constitutional right of privacy. Recognition of such a right to euthanasia would impermissibly expand the right of privacy and thus place the issue outside the arenas of public debate and legislative action. Such a holding would also involve the judiciary in deciding questions that are simply beyond its capacity. There is no principled basis for the court to legalize euthanasia.     

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.