解读隐私权

隐私权是自然人所享有的个人私事或生活安宁不为他人知晓或侵扰的权利,包括隐私信息隐瞒权、隐私信息支配权和私人生活安宁权。它是当事人实现正当隐私利益的行为依据。隐私权是一种人格权,隐私权的意义在于保护公民基于合法隐私之上的人格利益。我国虽有一些保护隐私的法律条款,但在隐私权的保护方面仍存在着一定的不足。     

Is “Big Data” creepy?

We now live in a world of Big Data, massive repositories of structured, unstructured or semi-structured data. This is seen as a valuable resource for organisations, given the potential to analyse and exploit that data to turn it into useful information. However, the cost and risk of continuing to hold that data can also make it a burden for many organisations.     

Building our future glass homes – An essay about influencing the future through regulation

The present paper surveys the prospects and possibilities of regulating the application areas of Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) – or in a broader sense, of influencing the future way of life – at the intersection of law, technology and society. It dissects the anticipated further erosion of personal privacy – the focus area of the essay – caused by technological developments and related interests. After sketching out an ironic dystopia, in which the idea of transparency is foisted upon the public by future technological developments, the author contemplates the relationships between legal regulation and the underlying values in the predictable but unknowable milieu of future life conditions. While studying the immutability of fundamental values, the author offers a brief survey of the role of public opinion, as well as of the limitations of taking into account the majority opinion, followed by a thought experiment about the possible ways of regulating the “Code”, approaching it from the direction of two fundamental rights, the right to human dignity and the freedom of academic research. After reaching conflicting conclusions and making a few suggestions about possible ways to regulate the area, the author makes a proposal about the introduction of a small-scale experimental tool, metaphorically named as a predictive learning model of regulation. Despite the difficulties and the uncertainties, the essay's overall perspective on the role of legal regulation is not a pessimistic one, as long as it is used flexibly and in conjunction with other means of regulation.     

Privacy,anonymity and liability: Will anonymous communicators have the last laugh?

In this paper, the author sets out the way in which the UK approach to privacy protection is able to extend its reach to anonymous postings. Whilst anonymity might sometimes be seen as one of the essential characteristics of communicating on-line, it does not provide an impenetrable veil of protection in respect of a privacy violation claim. Instead, there are avenues available to identify anonymous communicators, which have implications both for internet freedom and jurisdiction in cyberspace. In the UK, our common law has not denied bloggers, or other on-line contributors, anonymity per se. However, it will be argued that recent UK judgments represent a warning to anonymous communicators that they can be held liable for what they post on-line and that naivety is no defence at law. Whilst on-line platforms allow people to effectively become journalists; to become publishers, as familiar users, they should become more aware of the consequences of their on-line postings and appreciate that they will not be able to escape from the application of third party disclosure orders. However, as these are not without their problems, it is possible that anonymous communicators may have the last laugh.     

论隐私权的法律价值

隐私权承载了极其丰富的法律价值:它明确隐私利益的权属;有效对抗公权力;成就民法总则部分设定的法律人像;更为重要的是,它可以为现代人注入新的人性元素。确认隐私权的法律价值有助于隐私权立法。     

The principle of security safeguards: Unauthorized activities

The principle of information security safeguards is a key information privacy principle contained in every privacy legislation measure, framework, and guideline. This principle requires data controllers to use an adequate level of safeguards before processing personal information. However, privacy literature neither explains what this adequate level is nor how to achieve it. Hence, a knowledge gap has been created between privacy advocates and data controllers who are responsible for providing adequate protection. This paper takes a step toward bridging this knowledge gap by presenting an analysis of how Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners have evaluated the adequacy level of security protection measures given to personal information in selected privacy invasive cases. This study addresses both security measures used to protect personal information against unauthorized activities and the use of personal information in authentication mechanisms. This analysis also lays a foundation for building a set of guidelines that can be used by data controllers for designing, implementing, and operating both technological and organizational measures used to protect personal information.     

Data protection: The future of privacy

The Art. 29 Working Party (hereinafter “Art. 29 WP”) is an influential body comprised of representatives from the Member State Data Protection Authorities² established under the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, has recently issued an opinion with the Working Party on Police and Justice. This is quite significant, since the opinion sets out some of the issues that will need to be addressed in the lead up to the revision of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.³ This comes at a time, when there have been discussions on the current application of the European Data Protection Directive to the internet,⁴ (such as social networking) and the recent European Commission’s consultation on the legal framework for the fundamental right to protection of personal data. Not least, there have been a number of cases brought before the European Court of Justice dealing with the partial implementation of the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.⁵The aim of this paper is to consider in detail the issues set out by the Art. 29 WP and the likely challenges in revising the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.     

A Behavioural Understanding of Privacy and its Implications for Privacy Law

This article draws upon social interaction theory (the work of Irwin Altman) to develop a theory of the right to privacy, which reflects the way that privacy is experienced. This theory states that the right to privacy is a right to respect for barriers, and that an invasion of privacy occurs when a privacy barrier is penetrated. The first part of the paper establishes the position of the author's theory in the existing scholarship. The second part of the paper expands upon the theory to explain the nature of privacy barriers and the way that the author's theory manages a number of specific privacy issues, including threats to privacy, attempted invasions of privacy, unforeseeable interferences with privacy and waiving the right to privacy. The final part of the paper demonstrates the impact that this approach to privacy could have upon judicial reasoning, in particular Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights.     

Transgender Marriage and the Legal Obligation to Disclose Gender History

Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 as amended by the Gender Recognition Act 2004 requires transgender people to disclose their ‘gender history’ to the other party to a marriage prior to the marriage ceremony. Failure to do so enables the other party to exit the relationship through nullity proceedings. This article argues that this provision is discriminatory and encroaches on the right to privacy, breaching Articles 14 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It challenges the idea, implicit in the provision, that non‐disclosure of gender history is unethical or fraudulent. Crucially, the article considers and rejects the claim that discrimination against and encroachments on the privacy of transgender people are justified because inadvertent sexual congress with a transgender person is potentially harmful. Finally, if a consent‐based right to know exists, it argues that it ought to be trumped by considerations of justice, legal consistency and public policy.     

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – Worth remembering?

In the last few years there has been a lot of buzz around a so-called ‘right to be forgotten’. Especially in Europe, this catchphrase is heavily debated in the media, in court and by regulators. Since a clear definition has not emerged (yet), the following article will try to raise the veil on this vague concept. The first part will weigh the right’s pros and cons against each other. It will appear that the ‘right to be forgotten’ clearly has merit, but needs better definition to avoid any negative consequences. As such, the right is nothing more than a way to give (back) individuals control over their personal data and make the consent regime more effective. The second part will then evaluate the potential implementation of the right. Measures are required at the normative, economical, technical, as well as legislative level. The article concludes by proposing a ‘right to be forgotten’ that is limited to data processing situations where the individual has given his or her consent. Combined with a public interest exception, this should (partially) restore the power balance and allow individuals a more effective control over their personal data.