《个人信息保护法》具体适用中的若干问题探讨——基于《民法典》与《个人信息保护法》关联的视角

《个人信息保护法》中的私法规范与《民法典》属于特别法和一般法的关系.告知同意规则作为个人信息处理的核心规则,司法层面应当对"不同意就不提供服务"等违反自愿原则取得个人同意的效力予以否定评价.除个人同意外,法定许可也是个人信息处理的重要合法性基础.在信息处理者违法处理个人信息的归责原则上,《个人信息保护法》明确适用过错推...     

论《个人信息保护法》对医学科研的影响

《个人信息保护法》“强化两头,多方平衡”。医学科研中的个人信息处理应以保护受试者个人信息权益为前提,平衡好各方合法权益。个人信息的界定采关联说,编码信息属于个人信息。医学研究应遵守个人信息处理规则,处理个人信息应当有合法依据,要么取得受试者明确同意,要么有法律许可。医学研究中的个人信息往往既是敏感信息,也是私密信息,故对受试者个人权益往往有重大影响,需要在处理前进行评估,严格履行《个人信息保护法》规定的个人信息处理者义务,依法保障受试者在个人信息处理活动中的法定权利。《个人信息保护法》对科学研究中的泛化同意未予认可,不符合医学科研的特点,不利于科学创新,值得商榷。     

论国家机关处理个人信息的合法性基础

我国个人信息保护法对国家机关处理个人信息作出了特别规定,但未明文解释其适用对象或澄清处理的合法性基础。个人信息保护领域的国家机关应采广义,除了通常的国家机关,还包括法律、法规授权提供公共服务的组织和规章授权组织。根据我国个人信息保护法第13条和民法典第1036条,国家机关处理个人信息具有多元的合法性基础:法定基础包括履行法定职责所必需,订立、履行合同或人事管理所必需,为应急所必需,合理处理已自愿或合法公开的个人信息,法律、行政法规规定的其他情形;意定基础指取得个人同意;酌定基础指为维护公共利益或者信息主体合法权益而合理处理个人信息。不同的合法性基础对应不同的告知同意规则,需准确理解适用。     

论私密个人信息的合理使用困境与出路

《民法典》第1034条第3款确立的私密信息隐私权保护优先规则导致私密信息应有的合理使用空间被不当限缩,有必要引入《个人信息保护法》中的个人信息合理使用规则。在将私密信息划分为非敏感私密信息和敏感私密信息的基础上,前者可通过《民法典》第1034条第3款后半句“没有规定的,适用有关个人信息保护的规定”直接适用《个人信息保护法》第13条第1款第2项至第7项中的个人信息合理使用情形,后者则可基于敏感个人信息保护规则应优先于隐私权保护规则适用的解释思路,在符合《个人信息保护法》第28条第2款“敏感个人信息处理规则”的前提下,再适用《个人信息保护法》第13条第1款第2项至第7项中的个人信息合理使用情形。     

信息控制权法理与我国个人信息保护立法

民法典没有明确规定自然人的个人信息控制权是遗留课题,有待后续地方立法和国家立法进一步完善.深圳经济特区数据条例规定了自然人、法人和非法人组织、国家的数据权,未做实质区分.我国个人信息保护法草案二次审议稿规定了个人信息决定权等若干权利.信息的人格属性集中体现在其可识别特定自然人的性质,属于区别不同自然人人格权的客体种类....     

《民法典》视域下的个人信息保护

个人信息的重要性随着互联网、大数据、云计算和人工智能的快速发展越来越凸显。《民法典》对个人信息权益的法律属性界定以及相应保护规定,将自然人的个人信息保护提到了一个新高度,为进一步完善个人信息保护法律体系提供了重要的立法依据。但是,个人信息随技术变化还有许多方面不甚明确,适应这种变化的法律要求会不断提高。在《民法典》的视域下,不仅可以看到要保护哪些个人信息、保护的法律属性和实施保护的基本取向,还可以发现构建以《民法典》为基础的个人信息保护法律体系将是我国法治建设的一项重要任务,特别要加快《个人信息保护法》的制定进程。     

公开个人信息处理的默认规则——基于《个人信息保护法》第27条第1分句

同意和默认同意构成《个人信息保护法》处理个人信息的合法性基础。默认规则是基于促进个人信息的合理利用、维护公共利益和国家利益等理由的默认同意规则。《个人信息保护法》第27条第1分句一方面推定信息主体同意信息处理者处理公开的个人信息,建构起基于知情同意的默认规则;另一方面赋予信息主体对默认规则的“明确”拒绝权,二者共同构筑了处理公开个人信息默认规则的完整架构。作为一种倾向性的默认规则,该分句是对信息主体完全理性和有限理性的调和,也是在知情同意框架下通过助推的方式促成不同群体利益的调和;它在尊重个体自由与自主的前提下,通过规则设置突破基于知情同意的“个人控制”模式,拓展了信息处理者自主处理个人信息的空间。     

数字时代隐私权保护的立法因应

数字技术在为人类生活带来便利、促进数字经济发展和数字服务能力及效率提升的同时,使自然人隐私权面临以保障安全和发展经济为名的潜在威胁、数字伦理缺失等多重消解风险。当下中国形成了以《数据安全法》保障数据安全、以《个人信息保护法》规制个人信息处理活动、以《民法典》保护自然人隐私权的立法模式。但在数字时代,上述立法模式存在对个人信息和隐私界定不明、缺少流动场景下对隐私权社会属性的重视、隐私权法律救济和责任规制缺失、国内外的隐私权保护立法衔接不足等问题。在数字时代,我国对隐私权保护立法的完善,应从法理和适用规则上界分隐私和个人信息,依群体分类保护隐私权,完善私密信息的法律救济规则,健全对重点场景和行业的法律责任追究机制,建立公平公正的数字贸易与隐私权保护国际规则,强化自然人对数字社会治理的参与等。     

“无意入镜者”个人信息权益的保护——以公共场所的个人信息权益为视角

随着科技的发展,公民更加频繁地用镜头记录其日常生活。在公共场所,拍摄者有可能也将他人摄入镜头之中,构成了"无意入镜者"的情形。我国《民法典》与《个人信息保护法》并未将"无意入镜者"在公共场所中的个人信息权益与非公共场所的个人信息权益进行区分对待,无论个人信息是否属于私密,都可以得到保护。在"无意入镜者"个人信息权益与拍摄者权益平衡的问题上,应对我国《民法典》与《个人信息保护法》确立的关于个人信息保护的告知同意规则进一步做出解释。公共场所本身的属性,意味着"无意入镜者"存在自行公开个人信息的可能。对于被认定为自行公开的个人信息,拍摄者无需再取得"无意入镜者"的同意。除此之外,在公共场所中,履行告知同意义务既应当像服务提供商或者公权力机构采集民事主体个人信息一样严苛,同时可以适用默示同意的推定行为的空间而无需取得"无意入镜者"的明示同意。     

人格权确权与人格权法独立成编——以个人信息权为例

《民法总则》第111条对个人信息保护规则作出了规定,肯定了个人信息的人格利益属性,为个人信息权利保护提供了民事基本法依据.《民法总则》仅使用个别条文对各项具体人格权以及个人信息保护作出规定,并没有真正完成对各项具体人格权的确权.民法典应通过独立成编的人格权法,对各项具体人格权进行进一步确权;就个人信息权而言,人格权编应当在肯定其具体人格权地位的基础上,准确界定个人信息的内涵,明确合法收集、利用个人信息的标准,并对信用信息保护规则以及个人信息权的限制规则等作出规定.     

Cultural Minority Rights and the Rights of the Majority in the Liberal State

Traditional liberalism's blindness to cultural concerns has often come under fire, while so-called “liberal multiculturalism” (Taylor and Kymlicka) has made it its business to take a good look at the place of culture within liberal law. According to them, cultural minorities should be recognized. In my opinion, however, their proposals, in fact, almost entirely preclude the possibility that cultural minorities would receive recognition within liberal society. In what follows, I explain my view of these matters and, above all, argue for a more vital understanding of cultural minorities. This will entail presenting a comprehensive view of minority rights within liberal society.     

从应然权利到实然权利:文化权利的著作权法保障机制研究

文化参与、文化分享与文化创新成果利益保护,是国际公约和我国宪法保护的应然文化权利.在文化权利从应然权利到实然权利的保障机制中,著作权法通过调整文化创新成果的创作、传播与利用关系,不仅使文化成果收益权经由著作权保护而得到切实保障,而且通过著作权保护条件、范围等制度设计,为公众文化参与、文化分享权利提供资源保障与行为指引,从而使宪法上应然的文化权利得到具体的部门法保障.著作权法对文化权利的保障机制主要体现在以下方面:其激励作品创作与传播的功能、机制,为个人文化参与和文化分享权利的实现提供内容保障;其作品市场化传播的利益实现机制,为公众文化知识的接触、分享和利用提供现实可能;其合理使用等著作权限制制度,为公众可以自由利用的文化空间提供保障;著作权法对作者和其他著作权人就其作品著作权充分而有效的保护,是公众文化收益权的直接保障机制,是著作权法促进文化权利实现的关键.     

Human Rights Prosecutions and the Participation Rights of Victims in Latin America

Since the 1980s, there has been a significant rise in domestic and international efforts to enforce individual criminal accountability for human rights violations through trials, but we still lack complete explanations for the emergence of this trend and the variation observed in the use of human rights prosecutions in the world. In this article, we examine the role that procedural law has had in allowing societal actors to influence in this rising trend for individual criminal accountability. We do this by focusing on participation rights granted to victims, such as private prosecution in criminal cases. Based on an exploration of an original database on human rights prosecutions in Latin America and fieldwork research in three countries, we argue that private prosecution is the key causal mechanism that allows societal actors to fight in domestic courts for individual criminal accountability for human rights violations.     

The Evolution of International Indigenous Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System

Indigenous communities in the Western hemisphere are increasinglyrelying on international law and international fora for enforcementof their human rights. When there are no domestic laws thatrecognise indigenous rights, or such laws exist but there isno political will to enforce them, indigenous peoples in theAmericas may turn to the Inter-American human rights system.Consequently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Commission on Human Rights have developed a progressivecase law in this area. In 2005 and 2006, the Inter-AmericanCourt decided seminal indigenous ancestral land rights casesand a political rights case. This article analyses these casesand the previous jurisprudence and decisions on indigenous rightsin the Inter-American system.     

社团成员的权利与社团的权利和权力

社团成员的权利是每一个成员在其团体内享有的对本社团事务的参与权；社团的权利主要表现为法人的权利，它既是相对于国家权力、也是相对于其他社团权利和其他公民权利（以及人权）而存在的。社团的权力不同于社团的权利，是对内而非对外的，其来源主要是法律授权和结社者的构建。社团权力具有私权力的特点，它比国家权力距离个人更近，但其强制性相对淡化。社团的责任源于社团的权力，不行使权力或权力行使不到位都要承担相应的责任。社团权力应当保障其成员的权利而不应压制其权利，社团领导人应该有引领其成员的作用和能力，他们之间的关系主要是权力与权利的关系。     

Towards Administrative Human Rights in the EU. Impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Abstract: This article analyses the development of administrative human rights in the EU. It demonstrates that the new right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights crowns a long process of constitutionalisation of basic administrative rights in the Community. The article discusses the meaning, content, and possible impact of Article 41 of the Charter. It explains, inter alia, the doctrinal basis of a ‘right to good administration’, and its more immediate origins. It also offers a textual analysis and commentary of Article 41. Other rights, which possibly come within the concept of ‘good administration’ but are not included in Article 41, are also suggested. The article concludes with an evaluation of Article 41 of the Charter. It argues that although Article 41 is a significant development in terms of individual administrative rights, it offers a one‐sided vision of the function of administrative law.     

In the Name of Equal Rights: "Special" Rights and the Politics of Resentment in Post–Civil Rights America

This article explores the character of conservative legal activism in post–civil rights America, arguing that this activism is motivated by two related factors: (1) resentment over the increased political participation of historically marginalized Americans and (2) principled allegations that these historically marginalized Americans are making illegitimate claims for "special," not equal, rights. I argue that the allegation of special rights is tied to the activists' resentment in multiple and complex ways. On the one hand, the allegation that the rights claims of the historically marginalized are illegitimate claims for special rights is itself an expression of resentment. Like arguments that oppose redistributive social change by relying upon discourses of color blindness, states' rights, evangelical Christianity, and community harmony, special rights talk channels resentment into recognizable and intelligible forms. But, on the other hand, the use of special rights talk is not simply cover for an underlying, fully formed resentment. Instead, the allegation of special rights propels and amplifies activists' resentment, transforming it from one that is based primarily upon competing self-interests into one that is concerned with values, morality, and national identity. Special rights talk thus partially constitutes resentment; it hardens the resolve of opponents of redistributive social change, encouraging them to understand themselves as defenders not only of their own self-interests but also, primarily even, as defenders of the core American values and ideals that are promoted by equal rights and assaulted by special rights. Thus convinced that their opposition is authorized by American tradition, conservative legal activists redouble their counter-mobilization efforts, leading to an exacerbation of already tense conflicts. A case study of the nationwide anti-treaty-rights movement grounds this analysis.     

Rights as Excess: Understanding the Politics of Special Rights

Although the expression special rights emerged most prominently in the twentieth century as a negative response to the civil rights movement, the use of the term has recently acquired a broader, more ubiquitous doctrinal reach. In this paper we elaborate on the meaning of the term special rights as a political device and a way to mobilize power. As a discourse, special rights inverts relations between majority and minority, threatens a cultural contract that distributes universalistic and particular norms, and alters relations of governance. We apply these ideas to an empirical study of special rights politics in three very different issues in Hawai'i-same-sex marriage, the conversion of landholding from leasehold to fee, and indigenous sovereignty. These case studies demonstrate both the pervasiveness and capaciousness of special rights. We show that the use and impact of this discursive strategy varied a great deal from case to case, as did the responses to the accusations of special rights. Our findings suggest that special rights languuge and its surrogates have become a pervasive part of post-civil rights politics.     

The Concept of Rights in Contemporary Human Rights Discourse

In a variety of disciplines, there exists a consensus that human rights are individual claim rights that all human beings possess simply as a consequence of being human. That consensus seems to me to obscure the real character of the concept and hinder the progress of discussion. I contend that rather than thinking of human rights in the first instance as “claim rights” possessed by individuals, we should regard human rights as higher order norms that articulate standards of legitimacy for sociopolitical and legal institutions.