DNA profiles from biological trace material contained in underwear and toothbrushes

There are special cases where it is extremely difficult to find a close relative for obtaining reference samples, such as in adoption cases or foreigners without relatives in the country. In these cases, it is possible to use personal objects from the missing person. We developed a protocol for obtaining DNA profiles from toothbrushes and underwear and evaluated two DNA extraction methods (Silica and magnetic particles), comparing the DNA quantity and the quality of the obtained profiles. Results showed that for underwear, silica in suspension recovered higher DNA quantity but magnetic particles (PrepFiler®) generated more complete profiles. For toothbrushes PrepFiler® recovered a higher DNA quantity and generated more complete DNA profiles. Statistical analyses showed there were no significant differences between both methods. Higher DNA quantities were recovered from underwear samples, however toothbrushes generated higher quality in DNA profiles, without obtaining mixed profiles, concluding that toothbrushes are a better item than underwear. Considering that silica in suspension method is three-times cheaper than PrepFiler®, we propose it is possible to successfully obtain DNA profiles from personal objects using a low-cost DNA extract method.     

Decision Making and Justice

This article considers how judges can improve decision making, especially in cases that involve children in the family court. It looks specifically at improvements that are being implemented in England and Wales following a major review of family justice in 2011. All judges need to be well‐trained and well‐informed if they are to make the best‐quality decisions they can. Three principles underpin the approach to improving judicial decision making, which must be systematic, evidence based, and tested, and the evidence that informs judicial decisions must be robust. Collaboration among professionals in the development of good practice, its dissemination, and its application should be the acknowledged goal, and it should involve the views and perceptions of the young people and families involved.     

反思与重构:非物质文化遗产资源司法保护的知识产权路径探究

本文试以非物质文化遗产资源的知识产权保护路径为视角,首先从域内外的判例入手展开实证解读,梳理司法实践中权利保护的现实困境;其次以非遗资源与知识产权内在属性的冲突、价值理念的弥合及保护机制的协调为着眼点,追溯非遗资源知识产权司法保护的理论根源;在此基础上从不同层面研究现存问题并提出完善对策,主要着眼于理念层面的价值构建与实践层面的争议思考,主张从价值层面平衡多元利益,呵护原创制度本旨;从理念层面倡导合作共赢,完善原始权利保障;从制度层面强调分类施策,区分智力成果类型;从实践层面注重完善机制,优化司法规则设计。以期对于深化非遗资源保护,优化创新驱动发展战略,并完善法治化营商环境有所裨益。     

数据安全认证:个人信息保护的第三方规制

契合"放管服"改革理念的数据安全认证,在数字时代整个规制法体系中必将占据日益重要的地位。数据安全认证通过声誉评价机制,可以引导、激励互联网企业守法合规经营,可以增强用户对中小微互联网企业和新兴数字产业的信任感,可以避免"一刀切"的政府规制,可以满足社会公众多元的数据安全需求。数据安全认证机构应具有高度的独立性与专业性,防止其被互联网企业"俘获"或成为政府的"附庸"。宜实行自愿为主、强制为辅的数据安全认证模式。认证程序应强调公正透明性,认证标准应注重评价企业数据合规的制度建设。根据过错责任原则,分别设置数据安全认证机构"相应的赔偿责任"或"连带责任",并加大对数据安全认证违法行为的公法责任追究。科学构建法治化的数据安全认证体制机制,不仅是保障数据安全的现实需要,而且是弥补数字时代政府规制缺陷的迫切需求。     

香港特区的政府资讯公开——以免费电视牌照事件为文本的分析

曾有学者评价香港特区是一个"回避法定知情权的开放政府"。1这一独特的制度究竟是如何运作的,颇令人好奇。2013年,免费电视牌照事件持续发酵,一波三折。透过该事件,可以看到立法机关脱离了行政机关,变成行政机关的监察者、制衡者与竞争者;独立的司法机关的政治影响力也越来越大。如何处理好保密与公开的关系、处理好行政效率与公众利益的关系,如何更能回应民众诉求,如何进一步提升施政能力和水平,都是摆在政府面前的重大课题。     

How can European states respond to Russian information warfare? An analytical framework

How can European democratic states respond to Russian information warfare? This article aims to enable and spur systematic research of how democracies can respond to the spread of distorted information as part of information warfare. The article proposes four ideal-type models representing different strategies that democratic governments can employ; blocking, confronting, naturalising and ignoring. Each strategy is illustrated by ways of empirical examples of strategies applied by European states in view of what is regarded as an unwelcome Russian strategic narrative that is spread as part of information warfare. We problematise each strategy and explore reasons for why states choose one strategy over another. We then explore how different strategies might contribute to destabilise or stabilise the security environment and how they resonate with democratic values. Finally, we contribute to theorising on strategic narratives by highlighting that the choice of strategy will influence states in their formation of strategic narratives. We thus further theorising on strategic narratives by highlighting the link between strategies and narratives, thus identifying one central dynamic in how narratives are formed.     

著作权保护期限标准的审视与重构

著作权的两类权利主体(自然人和非自然人)获得保护的正当性理由不同,相应的保护期限也应根据不同的标准确立。回顾著作权法的发展历史,二者没有被清晰区分。以自然人作者保护为前提发展而来的"照顾理论"是大部分国家现行时间标准的正当性理由。信息社会著作权法的保护范围和制度设计都有了深刻变革,要实现公平正义目标,著作财产权的保护期限应当重构:一方面,非自然人权利主体作品不应也不宜直接适用原有根据自然人作者设计的保护期限,而应根据"激励理论"参考专利法确定固定保护期;另一方面,应当审视"照顾理论"在现有背景下的合理性,对自然人作品建议采用原则上以作者生命为限结合最低保护期限的标准。现有保护期限都应缩短,在受国际条约所限该目标短期难以达成的现状下,可以调整著作权保护宽度,采用相对宽松的合理使用制度。     

论民法典编纂视角下的个人信息保护立法

个人信息保护已经成为互联网时代的重大法律问题之一。个人信息保护涉及多个法律领域、多种法律手段,因此必须采取综合治理的方式来解决个人信息保护问题,构建个人信息保护的多元法律体系。十三届全国人大三次会议将于2020年3月审议表决《民法典》,还将计划制定《个人信息保护法》。因此,我国个人信息保护立法将迎来历史性突破,以民事基本法与行政单行法构筑的我国个人信息保护法律体系将基本形成。     

论个人信息保护的行政规制路径

个人信息保护存在私法诉讼与行政规制两种主要路径,私法诉讼多以侵权之诉的形式展开。由于个人信息处理者与信息主体的地位失衡,信息主体举证困难,维权难度高;由于损害难以界定,诉讼存在成本与收益不均衡的激励困境;同时,个别性的诉讼也难以有效回应系统性的社会风险。行政规制路径以基本权利的国家保护义务作为法权基础,在专业性、信息充分程度、治理效率等方面具有比较优势。个人信息保护立法应当更妥善地处理两种路径的协调。未来个人信息保护的行政规制路径需要进一步明确规制体制,充分运用行政处罚、自我规制、内部管理型规制、第三方规制等多元化的规制机制。     

The research on the “dual system” protection and claim basis of the personal privacy and information in the “General Principles of Civil Law”

The “General Principles of Civil Law” of our country (article 110 and article 111) protects the privacy and information separately, the problem in theory and practice is that, in this two yuan protection mode, privacy and information can be clearly distinguished from or not? From the perspective of foreign legislation, majority legislation take the “one system” protection, which does not distinguish between information and privacy, which the reason is the privacy and the personal information are difficult to distinguish. I agree that the “General Principles of Civil Law” of China's “dual system” protection for privacy and information, and consider that the privacy and information can be distinguished, and we should apply the “Rule of Thirds” to distinguish between privacy and information, which is divided into purely personal privacy, privacy information, purely personal information.On the basis of the claim basis for the protection of privacy and information, the claim basis whose privacyand information is infringed exists in the eighth chapter of the “General Principles of Civil Law”, and several special laws such as “Tort Liability Law” and “Network Security Act”. Although the “General Principles of Civil Law”‘s Article 109-111 stipulated the provisions for the protection of right of privacy and information, but there is no effect of independent norms, because in these three articles, there is no protective measures to solve the problem that what is the civil juristic consequences when the privacy and information are violated.