论版权人的技术保护措施信息披露义务

数字信息技术的快速发展导致技术保护措施的功能已超出各国立法所依赖的技术认识前提.当前版权技术保护措施的运用不仅涉及到信息技术产品的兼容性问题,而且也影响到终端用户的信息隐私,更是关系到计算机网络的信息安全.因此,版权法应转变现行的技术保护措施规制的立法模式,在完善技术措施的保护和例外制度基础上,增加版权人的信息披露义务.     

网络版权中技术措施的法律保护

网络环境下,版权人的利益极易被侵犯,而当今各国版权法还不够完善,不能提供令版权人满意的保护,因此,版权人纷纷寻求自我保护。数字技术为版权人的自我保护提供了可能。技术措施和权利管理信息是版权人采取的权利保护及标示措施,将其纳入版权保护体系是版权保护在数字和网络环境下的新发展。一、将技术措施纳入版权保护体系的原因与进程所谓“技术措施”,是指版权人为防止他人对作品的非法使用,而在版权作品上采取的技术上的防范措施,令使用者不能任意复制、发行、传播、修改版权作品,从而维护版权人的经济利益和精神权利。根据欧…     

技术措施的法律性质确定:事前预防的电子自助——兼论版权法保护技术措施的逻辑合理性

接触控制技术措施是防止未经允许的对作品信息接触的事前预防的电子自助手段,而版权保护技术措施是防止非法的作品信息复制、传播等版权侵权的电子自助。技术措施要实现的本质目的不是防止版权侵权,而是通过接触控制实现最大程度的信息控制,确保信息的稀缺性。与版权专有权的目的一致,版权法保护技术措施的内在逻辑是保障版权人通过排除他人对作品信息的不正当接触和使用而充分实现经济收益,以激励更多的作品创作。     

简论技术措施和著作权的关系

一、技术措施简介技术措施是版权人或者与版权有关的权利人为了保护自己的版权或与版权有关的权利而采取的私力救济方法,它指的是版权人或相关权利人为了防止他人非经授权接触或使用其作品或录音录像制品而采取的技术上的手段和方法。版权人可以采取的技术措施多种多样,依据不同的标准可以进行不同的分类。例如有的把技术措施分成四类:控制接触的技术措施、控制使用的技术措施、保护作品完整性的技术措施以及保证支付报酬的技术措施。1有的则将技术措施分成三种:作品发行前的技术措施、保证付酬的技术措施和确认侵权的技术措施2,等等。但大…     

技术措施版权期限的理论思考与制度设计

技术措施纳入版权法,其版权期限不仅有其必要性、合理性,而且还独具特征;在制度设计上,技术措施版权期限由其被保护的作品来决定,而不应当给它规定一个具体的期限,同时为防止版权人对技术措施的滥用,立法时还要苛于版权人公示版权期限和主动解密的义务。     

论数字版权管理技术和隐私权的冲突与对策

数字版权管理技术因远程控制功能的隐患和版权人的主观过错,容易与最终用户的隐私权发生冲突,因此必须从法律和技术两条途径规范数字版权管理技术的使用,增加版权人的义务并完善隐私权保护体系,制定技术措施安全性标准以规范技术措施行业,设立技术措施监管机构、构建预警机制,保证法律发挥应有实效。     

技术措施界定的比较与评价

技术措施的科学界定具有重要意义,它应体现版权法的利益平衡精神。技术措施不是独立的,它往往和版权作品结合起来,以便对作品的使用、接触需要“版权人许可”或“授权”。技术措施受法律保护应满足三个条件:(1)技术措施的有效性,一是技术措施控制版权作品的有效性,二是技术性措施本身的有效性,具有技术上的可行性;(2)为版权人(作者、邻接权人和其他版权持有人)所主动采取;(3)其使用目的之合法性。因此我国在法律上应借鉴而予以规定。     

网络环境中版权和隐私权的冲突与协调

随着版权保护技术措施的实施,尤其通过电子版权管理系统,版权人可以控制个人使用作品的行为,版权人侵入到个人隐私领域成为可能,使版权与隐私权产生冲突。解决冲突的协调方式是在立法上保证版权人和隐私权人的利益的平衡。     

电子商务环境下个人信息安全危机与法律保护对策探析

消费者个人信息对于传统营销模式向精准营销的转变具有决定性作用,这也决定了消费者个人信息非凡的商业价值。然而当前我国电子商务环境下个人信息的收集与使用存在大量安全隐患,消费者在强大的网络技术面前显得毫无隐私可言,这就需要不断完善我国网络环境下的个人信息保护的法律制度,维护网络消费者合法权益,保障电子商务产业的健康发展。     

网络著作权技术措施 保护中的利益平衡

一技术措施与技术措施权 版权的技术措施,指版权人以技术手段对作品主动采取措施,保护和管理自己的版权,防止侵权的行为."这种技术性措施现在被理解为杜绝擅自复制、保护著作权的‘反复制保护'"1.网络时代,网上数字作品易被复制、盗版,技术措施对于保护网络作品版权已不可或缺,技术措施的保护也成为版权保护的重要课题,技术措施保护权利因此产生.     

公共空间运用大规模监控的法理逻辑及限度——基于个人信息有序共享之视角

为应对现代化进程中的社会风险,安抚公众对风险的恐慌情绪,公共空间大规模监控随之诞生,并迅速在现实社会和网络空间中全面运用。公共治理不能取安全保障而舍隐私保护,公共空间大规模监控的运用并非以牺牲隐私权为代价,而是在保障安全法益的同时兼顾隐私法益的保护。在此"既保障安全,又保护隐私"的法理念下,公共空间大规模监控的运用体现了风险治理从个人本位走向社会本位的转变趋势,并促进了个人信息保护从自主支配到有序共享的逻辑转换。为寻求安全保障与隐私保护之间的平衡路径,在公共空间合理运用大规模监控措施,就必须加强信息收集、存储、使用的阶段性控制,建立个人信息合理使用制度,实现个人信息的有序共享。     

The security of access to accounts under the PSD2

The revised Payment Services Directive (‘PSD2’) has been adopted to stimulate the development of an integrated internal market for payment services. In particular, it facilitates payment initiation services and account information services by granting the providers of these services access to the accounts of the payment service users. At the same time, the recitals state that the PSD2 guarantees a high level of consumer protection, security of payment transactions and protection against fraud.This paper answers the following question: To what extent does the access to accounts of the payment initiation service providers and account information service providers balance the development of the market for payment services with the security of the payment account and the privacy of the user? An analysis of the PSD2 shows that the development of the market for payment services has a higher priority. Security and privacy are ultimately subordinate.First, the PSD2 does not adequately protect the personal data of the users. The definition of ‘account information service’ is broad and covers a wide range of services. This allows the payment service providers to circumvent the limitations of the access to accounts.Next, the payment service providers have a ‘fall back option’ that allows ‘screen scraping’ if the dedicated interface is not functioning properly. Although this access is constrained by several safeguards, the fall back option gives the payment services provider unlimited access to the account of the user.Finally, the payment service providers have considerable freedom to arrange their authentication process as they see fit. The banks seem to be required to trust this process. The PSD2 and regulatory technical standards do not demand that a bank is able to verify the authentication or the integrity of the payment order.     

从隐私权角度论人身强制处分

涉及人身的强制处分直接干预了犯罪嫌疑人的人身隐私领域。从隐私权角度研究人身强制处分,可以忽略差别、把握本质,系统地对搜查、人身检查、鉴定等相互关联的强制处分进行理论梳理。个人的身体隐私权旨在维护与人身相关的人格尊严。为保障刑事诉讼中犯罪嫌疑人对其身体享有的人格尊严,立法者应当依据比例原则并发展出具体的考察指标,用以权衡强制处分涉及的隐私利益和执法利益,设定不同的干预门槛。对于涉及人身的强制处分,还应当建立直接强制的审查基准。只有通过三段式审查的强制处分,才能由侦查机关运用强制力施行。对未通过三段式审查的强制处分,侦查机关不可实施直接强制,但刑事诉讼法应当允许司法机关通过间接制裁,以获取相对人的同意。     

Privacy law as price control

The median Internet user is concerned about digital advertisers collecting personal information. To address these fears, the European Union passed the Privacy Directive to regulate the common business practice of information collection. This paper investigates the potential effects of this regulation, finding that the law is likely to generate several unintended consequences. Economists and legal scholars acknowledge that personal data serves as the “price” for accessing many digital platforms. I extend this logic to argue that if a regulation enables consumers to stop supplying this information, while continuing to consume the site’s content, it is equivalent to a price control. Next, I discuss unintended consequences that this price control may generate: tie-in sales, investment flight, and altered exchange characteristics. Lastly, I conclude that, just as with traditional price controls, the privacy price control may be a way for government officials to enhance their popularity with the citizenry. In short, my analysis suggests that one of the most well-researched policy interests of economics—the theory of price controls—can shed light on one of economists’ newest interests: digital privacy.     

Privacy and Search Engines: Forgetting or Contextualizing?

This article considers the much‐criticized ‘right to be forgotten’ in the context of the European Court of Justice's judgment in the Google Spain case. It defends the ‘right to be forgotten’ as a metaphor that can provide us with a better understanding of the particular privacy concerns of the search‐engine age and their interaction with the freedom to access information, and draws on Goffman's idea of ‘information games’ and Nissenbaum's theory of ‘contextual integrity’. While supporting the principles that underpin the judgment, the article rejects the Court's binary approach of ‘forgetting’ versus ‘remembering’ personal information. Instead, it argues that the EU legislator should introduce more nuanced means of addressing modern privacy concerns. By establishing two remedies – ‘delisting’ or ‘reordering’, depending on the nature of the information – online information flows can be adjusted to preserve both the right to privacy and the freedom to access information in more contextually appropriate ways.     

网络信息时代电子病历的隐私保护研究

与传统纸质病历相比,电子病历信息的存储和共享的范围将进一步扩大,但同时也为隐私信息的暴露提供捷径。本文通过分析我国电子病历隐私保护现状及存在的问题,并对比发展较好的其他国家电子病历隐私保护历程,提出我国进一步完善电子病历隐私保护的建议。     

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.     

The NHS Information Revolution: ‘Choice of Control’ to ‘Choice’ and ‘Control’

This paper provides a novel and critical analysis of the necessary and important balance between ‘individual privacy’ and ‘collective transparency’. We suggest that the onset of the Information Revolution has created a dilemma for the National Health Service (NHS) in terms of how it addresses its obligation to use information to improve best practice in healthcare for society (‘collective transparency’) whilst also keeping sensitive personal information confidential (‘individual privacy’). There is clearly a need to consider both whether the NHS is balancing this critically important informational relationship and whether its approach is fit for purpose. We argue that the NHS's ‘proxy-individual’ information guardian role could inadvertently mask individuals' intended roles, effectively circumventing autonomy-based laws by limiting the power of individuals to be autonomous. In this article we have identified three issues – first the prevailing ‘Mindset’ (the ‘M’) of ‘privacy’, which is viewed as individualistic, resulting in an overpowering concept of confidentiality; second, the quality and control of Information (the first ‘I’); and third, the concept of innovation (the second ‘i’), which is being used as a ‘solution’ rather than a vehicle for transparency. Indeed, transparency is our target of ‘best practice,’ and we suggest that individual privacy and collective transparency are best embedded within a complementary privacy framework that offers a better fit than the current split of control between the roles of the NHS and the roles of the individual. It is suggested that when facilitated by transparency, ‘control’ and ‘privacy’ form a continuum, aligning through the desire for choice. Therefore, the choice of control could facilitate control and choice. Together, they could replace the concept of privacy by empowering ‘informed patients’ to support the NHS's ‘No decision about me, without me’ pledge.     

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.     

雇佣纠纷中的医疗隐私

在雇佣纠纷中,雇员的医疗隐私为讼争焦点之一。究竟应赋予雇员隐私权还是赋予雇主知情权,取决于雇员隐私利益与雇主知情利益之间的衡量。而利益衡量的标准须符合戴维·米勒所谓的应得工作的原则。当雇员的医疗信息与雇主的经营成本有关,雇主知情权优先。2010年人力资源和社会保障部、教育部、卫生部三部委联合发布的《关于进一步规范入学和就业体检项目维护乙肝表面抗原携带者入学和就业权利的通知》禁止就业乙肝检测,虽符合就业市场的分配正义,但应明确规定允许乙肝检测的特殊行业;并且,这一规定不应推广至艾滋病检测。