China's new regulatory regime tailored for the sharing economy: The case of Uber under Chinese local government regulation in comparison to the EU,US, and the UK

Although Uber's arrival in China has resulted in disruptive competition for incumbent taxi companies, it offers an attractive alternative in China's supply-demand-imbalanced urban passenger transport system. China's regulatory regime for Uber has evolved in three stages: from the regulatory vacuum prior to 2015 to its official legalization in 2015–2016, and the enactment of numerous local regulations in 2016, with specific and more demanding requirements for Uber. This policy is a part of the Chinese approach to the gradual liberalization of the urban passenger transport market. Policymakers should consider ‘fair competition’ as the guiding principle to balance the interests of sharing firms and incumbent service providers, as well as between different sharing firms. The core value of this principle lies in the benefits it provides for consumers and the way it engenders a pro-competitive market environment. The labor protection arrangements for sharing firms’ laborers should be more flexible and diversified. In order to recognize whether an Uber-Driver is an employee or independent contractor, a new standard taking into account a range of factors should be established through collective negotiations between the participants of the sharing economy, and dialogues between members of the judiciary, academics, and the policymakers. Further, consumer protection law and personal data protection provisions should apply when sharing firms misuse their distinctive algorithmic management model to compete unfairly to the detriment of consumers and other users. Ex ante regulatory measures designed to protect the personal data of users should be introduced for deployment in the context of the sharing economy. When enforcing these rules, a balance should be struck ensuring free data flow that is essential to sharing firms’ innovation and competition, and the need to ensure the level of data security required to underpin a well-functioning sharing society.     

再论国有独资公司

自93年《公司法》颁布以后,在95、96年期间,理论界曾就国企改革及国有独资公司相关问题作了一次较为集中的探讨。如今改革已经进行了10年的光景,许多国企的组织形式已发生了或大或小的变化,国有独资公司的地位开始动摇。文章于此时,重新捡起这一问题,于当今改革不断深化,机制转换的黄金时期,从国有独资公司的法律属性入手,通过对国有企业改制中的一些基本问题重新思考,再次从不同角度论述国有独资公司将在一个相当长的时期内依旧合理存在。     

弘扬现代大学精神增强高校道德建设

高等学校作为人类文明历史发展的产物,是传承文化和培养人才的重要场所。高等学校所培养的人才不仅需要掌握较扎实的专业知识,更重要的是还应具备高尚的思想道德情操。文章从当前高校道德建设方面入手,结合大学精神的特征、内容与功用等,探析了其对高校道德建设的重大作用,以期通过培养与构建现代大学精神来引领高校道德建设。     

对高校图书馆勤工助学管理工作的思考——以浙江警察学院图书馆勤工助学为例

近年来,随着社会的进步以及高校图书馆的发展建设,大学生对图书馆勘工助学的热情高涨。文章结合我校图书馆开展勤工助学活动的作用,分析了勤工助学过程中存在的一些问题,并提出了相应的对策及思考,以进一步提高勘工助学工作的效益。     

浅谈公安院校德育工作中的心理学运用

公安院校德育工作要适应公安工作的新形势、新要求,不断向系统化、科学化的方向发展。公安院校的教官、教师与培训干部（辅导员）,都是做学员思想政治工作的人,都是德育工作者,都要加强对心理学的重视程度,正确把握心理学的德育功能,坚持德育工作与心理教育相结合,促进两者紧密结合与优势互补,促进思想政治工作的实效性。     

应用型本科院校新生心理健康状况的调查与分析——以黑龙江工程学院2010级新生为例

通过采用大学生人格健康问卷(UPI)对黑龙江工程学院2010级2475名入学新生进行心理测试,从入学新生总体和男女生个体两个维度进行分析.结果表明:黑龙江工程学院入学新生的心理健康状况与国内其他类型大学UPI筛查率差异不大,但也有15.2%的学生可能存在一定心理问题或障碍.数据结果显示:被试男女生心理健康水平具有显著差...     

构建国际化视野的现代警察大学

新形势下调整、巩固与发展公安高等教育,不仅符合世界警务改革的大趋势,是推进警察教育国际合作的需要,更重要的是符合我国具体国情,符合公安高等教育自身规律。1.建设现代警察大学的思想理念;2.建立现代警察大学的基本框架;3.营造浓厚的学术气氛,创造深厚的校园文化;4.科学定位公安学历教育与在职民警培训的关系。     

高校青年机关干部担任兼职辅导员制度刍议

兼职辅导员是辅导员队伍中不可或缺的重要组成部分。在当前形势下,按照＂专职为主、专兼结合、优势互补＂的原则,从高校机关青年干部中吸收优秀人才充实辅导员队伍,对加强高校大学生思想政治教育、引导大学生全面发展、维护高校和社会稳定等方面,发挥着重要作用。     

广西—东盟合作办学模式下的大学生爱国主义教育

广西—东盟高校合作办学是在新形势下出现的新的办学形式,高校有必要加强合作办学,对学生进行爱国主义教育,本文提出了加强合作办学的大学生爱国主义教育的主要措施。     

Law enforcement access to personal data originally collected by private parties: Missing data subjects' safeguards in directive 2016/680?

Access by law enforcement authorities to personal data initially collected by private parties for commercial or operational purposes is very common, as shown by the transparency reports of new technology companies on law enforcement requests. From a data protection perspective, the scenario of law enforcement access is not necessarily well taken into account. The adoption of the new data protection framework offers the opportunity to assess whether the new ‘police’ Directive, which regulates the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes, offers sufficient safeguards to individuals. To make this assessment, provisions contained in Directive 2016/680 are tested against the standards established by the ECJ in Digital Rights Ireland and Tele2 Sverige on the retention of data and their further access and use by police authorities. The analysis reveals that Directive 2016/680 does not contain the safeguards identified in the case law. The paper further assesses the role and efficiency of the principle of purpose limitation as a safeguard against repurposing in a law enforcement context. Last, solutions to overcome the shortcomings of Directive 2016/680 are examined in conclusion.