The Copyright Royalty Tribunal: New Arena for Communications Industry Confrontation

Drawing from in-depth qualitative research of poetry communities in New York City and Toronto, Canada, and grounded in theories of gift relations and Bourdieu's conception of fields of literary production (1996), this article argues that the sustainability of the arts must include visions of sustainability that extend beyond the economic if they are to be true to the internal experience and definitions of fields of artistic production. This article argues that relations among poets can be understood as exemplars of a gift economy and that these gift relations among poets contribute to the sustainability of this artistic field and career. A model of how gift relations are patterned among poetry communities is proposed to more clearly articulate the patterns of this process.     

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。     

What do Alternative Measures of Peer Behavior Tell Us? Examining the Discriminant Validity of Multiple Methods of Measuring Peer Deviance and the Implications for Etiological Models

Deviant behavior tends to be more strongly correlated with respondents’ perceptions of peer deviance than with actual peer deviance. However, research has yet to discern between two interpretations of this finding. On one hand, respondent perceptions of peer deviance may simply be “biased” indicators of actual peer behavior or alternative measures of one’s own deviance. On the other, respondent perceptions and actual peer deviance may reflect fundamentally separate constructs. The present study uses two separate statistical methods to discern the empirical validity of each interpretation. It then illustrates the importance of the measurement results with a series of cross-lagged panel analyses assessing how a researcher’s operationalization of peer deviance impinges upon conclusions about the bidirectional relationship between personal and peer deviance. Measurement results across two separate behavioral domains (property crime and substance use) suggest that actual peer deviance items reflect a construct fundamentally separate from both personal and perceived peer deviance. Likewise, results fail to support the claim that peer deviance items are simply alternative measures of one’s own deviance. Cross-lagged structural equation results are consistent with the notion that personal deviance affects both later perceptions of peer deviance and actual peer deviance. Yet, null or very weak effects of either peer deviance measure on personal deviance are observed. In light of our findings, we discuss the necessity for new theorizing concerning the complex relations among personal behavior, perceived peer behavior, and actual peer behavior.     

Disclosure,Exposure and the ʻRight to be Forgottenʼ after Google Spain: Interrogating Google Search's webmaster,end user and Lumen notification practices

This article argues that Google's essentially blanket and unsafeguarded dissemination to webmasters of URLs delisted under the Google Spain judgment disclosures claimants’ personal data, cannot be justified either on the purported basis of their consent or a legal requirement but instead seriously infringes European data protection standards. Such disclosure would only be compatible with the initially contextually sensitive context of collection where it was (i) reasonably necessary and explicitly limited to the purposes of checking the legality of the initial decision and/or bona fide research and (ii) prevented unauthorised repurposing or other misuse through robust safeguards. Strict necessity thresholds would need to apply where disclosure involved special categories of data or was subject to reasoned objection by a data subject and international transfers would require further controls, ideally as provided by the European Commission's standard contractual clauses. Disclosing identifiable data on removals to end users would directly and fundamentally undermine a data subject's rights and, therefore, ipso facto violate purpose limitation and legality, irrespective of whether rights are claimed in data protection, defamation or civil privacy. The public's legitimate interests in receiving information on personal data removals are best secured through safeguarded scientific research, which search engines should facilitate.     

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。     

Pricing privacy – the right to know the value of your personal data

The commodification of digital identities is an emerging reality in the data-driven economy. Personal data of individuals represent monetary value in the data-driven economy and are often considered a counter performance for “free” digital services or for discounts for online products and services. Furthermore, customer data and profiling algorithms are already considered a business asset and protected through trade secrets. At the same time, individuals do not seem to be fully aware of the monetary value of their personal data and tend to underestimate their economic power within the data-driven economy and to passively succumb to the propertization of their digital identity. An effort that can increase awareness of consumers/users on their own personal information could be making them aware of the monetary value of their personal data. In other words, if individuals are shown the “price” of their personal data, they can acquire higher awareness about their power in the digital market and thus be effectively empowered for the protection of their information privacy. This paper analyzes whether consumers/users should have a right to know the value of their personal data. After analyzing how EU legislation is already developing in the direction of propertization and monetization of personal data, different models for quantifying the value of personal data are investigated. These models are discussed, not to determine the actual prices of personal data, but to show that the monetary value of personal data can be quantified, a conditio-sine-qua-non for the right to know the value of your personal data. Next, active choice models, in which users are offered the option to pay for online services, either with their personal data or with money, are discussed. It is concluded, however, that these models are incompatible with EU data protection law. Finally, practical, moral and cognitive problems of pricing privacy are discussed as an introduction to further research. We conclude that such research is needed to see to which extent these problems can be solved or mitigated. Only then, it can be determined whether the benefits of introducing a right to know the value of your personal data outweigh the problems and hurdles related to it.     

Personal Characteristics of MPs and Legislative Behavior in Moral Policymaking

Theoretical and empirical models of legislative decision making in parliamentary democracies typically neglect the policy preferences of individual MPs and instead focus on political parties and possible institutional constraints. We argue that MPs actually make judgments and decisions on the basis of their preferences, which are shaped by their personal characteristics. However, given the strength of parties in most parliamentary systems, the impact of personal characteristics on legislative behavior is rarely visible. Therefore, we examine a moral issue. Looking at cosponsorship, parliamentary speeches, and votes in the German Bundestag, we analyze the legislative procedure on the regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany in 2011. We show that the legislative behavior of MPs does not only reflect partisan conflict but is also influenced by the preferences of the constituents and MPs’ own personal characteristics such as: religious denomination, gender, and parental status.     

Delinquency,control maintenance,and the negation of fatalism

To account for the malicious and non-utilitarian character of much delinquent behavior, many theorists interpret delinquency as a symbolic statement of personal independence. In particular, they argue that delinquency represents a functional device or maneuver that enables youths to maintain a sense of personal control in the face of adult constraints and impositions. This study presents an empirical evaluation of this claim based on analyses of longitudinal data from a national survey of male adolescents. The findings are largely consistent with the “control-maintenance” argument. Data indicate that male adolescents tend to respond to adult constraints with a diminished sense of personal control (or fatalism). Delinquent involvement, however, negates the effect of such constraints. Implications for criminological theory, delinquency control, and future research are discussed.     

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。     

面向电子政务的个人数据保护立法初探

政府部门在政务处理过程中经常需要收集和传播与个人相关的数据信息。本文在对电子政务中的个人数据侵权行为分析基础上,通过对国外个人数据保护的相关立法情况的考察,进而对我国面向电子政务的个人数据立法的原则进行了初步探讨。     

论银行工作人员违规行为民事责任的认定

银行工作人员违规行为导致银行被诉案件日益增多 ,而我国立法上对个人行为和职务行为未作明确规定 ,司法实践中对银行工作人员的行为性质也存在争议 ,难以明确法律责任。本文从银行工作人员违规行为的表现形式出发 ,分析两种不同观点 ,提出区分个人行为和职务行为的原则标准 ,对司法实践中如何具体认定行为性质提出明确的建议     

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。     

Race and Officer Decision Making: Examining Differences in Arrest Outcomes between Black and White Officers

Since the 1960s, one of the major reform efforts in law enforcement has been to increase the number of Black Americans within police agencies and on patrol in the streets. The general premise behind these efforts has been that increased diversity will improve police–community relations and will decrease biased police behavior, particularly against Black citizens. Policies seeking to reform policing through increasing the numbers of African American officers have been implemented with little empirical evidence that an officer's race (or ethnicity) is actually related to their behavior towards citizens, in particular arrest decisions. Using data from systematic social observations of police–citizen encounters in Cincinnati, OH, this study examines the influence of officer race on arrest outcomes, focusing on the behavior of Black officers. Findings suggest that officer race has direct influence on arrest outcomes and there are substantive differences between White and Black officers in the decision to arrest. In general, White officers in our study were more likely to arrest suspects than Black officers, but Black suspects were more likely to be arrested when the decision maker was a Black officer.     

论劳动教养在中国的法律归宿——以社会危害性与人身危险性为基础的法律分析

社会危害性与人身危险性是对行为人予以处置的法律基础,社会危害性属于行为的范畴,而人身危险性属于行为人的范畴。社会危害性是行为人承担刑事责任的决定因素,而人身危险性是影响法官裁决结果的一个或然因素,与社会危害性相比,其只对量刑发生次要作用。劳动教养以行为人的人身危险性作为对其长时间剥夺人身自由的原因,其法理依据薄弱,法律地位不明。将劳动教养化解到我国现行法律制度中,以非刑罚处罚和保安处分措施予以代替,符合法律发展的逻辑。     

论身份关系协议对民法典合同编的参照适用

婚姻、收养、监护等有关身份关系的协议存在"参照适用"民法典合同编的空间。"身份关系协议的性质"是身份法律行为及相应身份权利义务关系所展现出的身份共同体特点,也是"参照适用"时对被引用法条限制或者修正变通的判断标准和解释依归。"身份关系协议的性质"具体包括鼓励缔结婚姻、维护夫妻等身份关系和谐安定、实现夫妻乃至家庭共同利益、养老育幼、未成年子女利益最大化等价值追求。应该区分不同类型的身份关系协议、区分同一类型身份关系协议中不同内容约款、区分身份关系协议的内部效力与外部效力,分别讨论"参照适用"的空间。不能脱离身份关系协议的"整体"来看待忠诚协议、离婚财产分割协议或者夫妻财产约定中的所谓"赠与条款"这个"部分",身份关系协议原则上应该作为一个整体,且形成继续性民事法律关系。     

“大数据杀熟”行为政府治理路径探讨

“大数据杀熟”行为严重损害了消费者权益。相对于传统商业“杀熟”行为,“大数据杀熟”行为更隐蔽,消费者维权更艰难。这种利用算法应用技术损害消费者权益的行为严重违背商业伦理,不仅关乎消费者个人权益,更会影响公共利益,仅凭市场调节难以纠正,需要通过法律进行救济。政府应在遵循辅助性原则的前提下,通过算法应用技术备案、建立“政府-社会”合作规制等制度,用新制度规制新技术,更好地发挥政府在治理“大数据杀熟”行为过程中的作用,保护消费者权益和社会公共利益。     

Opening Up Ownership: Community Belonging, Belongings, and the Productive Life of Property

Drawing on empirical data and property theory, this article explores the property structure of a "free school" and the work property performs there. At Summerhill, we can see a tension between two property registers. On the one hand, the founder and present members stress the importance of individual ownership; at the same time the school's property regime involves property-limitation rules, a dispersal of rights, collective forms of property, and cross-cutting, pluralized sites of institutional recognition. In exploring how this tension is manifested through property's work, the article focuses on property's contribution to a variegated social life at the school, analyzed in terms of personal, civic, and boundary relations. With belonging treated as the central component of property rather than exclusion or control, ways of understanding what constitutes property and how it works shift.     

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。     

Toward a better understanding of racial and ethnic disparities in search and seizure rates

Recent studies demonstrated a consistent research finding that compared to Caucasian motorists, Black and Hispanic motorists were significantly more likely to be subjected to personal and/or vehicle searches during traffic stops, but significantly less likely to be found in possession of contraband. Explanations for these findings were typically based on speculation regarding officers' racial animus, bias, and discrimination. Unfortunately, very little is truly known about the reasons for these disparate patterns in police behavior. This article presents an alternative explanation for the reoccurring findings of racial/ethnic disparities in searches and seizures, based on research findings regarding the accuracy of clues of deception and suspicious behavior taught to officers through highway criminal interdiction training. These research findings are used to develop a hypothesis that could account for the patterns of racial/ethnic disparities in search rates. The implications for future research and policing policies based on this hypothesis are discussed.     

Are ‘pseudonymised’ data always personal data? Implications of the GDPR for administrative data research in the UK

There has naturally been a good deal of discussion of the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation. One issue of interest to all data controllers, and of particular concern for researchers, is whether the GDPR expands the scope of personal data through the introduction of the term ‘pseudonymisation’ in Article 4(5). If all data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of the word (e.g. key-coded) are to be treated as personal data, this would have serious implications for research. Administrative data research, which is carried out on data routinely collected and held by public authorities, would be particularly affected as the sharing of de-identified data could constitute the unconsented disclosure of identifiable information.Instead, however, we argue that the definition of pseudonymisation in Article 4(5) GDPR will not expand the category of personal data, and that there is no intention that it should do so. The definition of pseudonymisation under the GDPR is not intended to determine whether data are personal data; indeed it is clear that all data falling within this definition are personal data. Rather, it is Recital 26 and its requirement of a ‘means reasonably likely to be used’ which remains the relevant test as to whether data are personal. This leaves open the possibility that data which have been ‘pseudonymised’ in the conventional sense of key-coding can still be rendered anonymous. There may also be circumstances in which data which have undergone pseudonymisation within one organisation could be anonymous for a third party. We explain how, with reference to the data environment factors as set out in the UK Anonymisation Network's Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework.