泛传播与泛责任:新媒体环境下的人格权保护

web2.0时代的到来使新媒体"泛传播"的特征愈发明显,新的媒介技术使大众深度参与网络并成为互动主体。无边界的公共空间和自媒体的出现为网民提供了更广阔的言论空间,与此同时大量侵权现象的产生也对新媒体空间的有效规制提出了挑战,"泛传播"更应意味着"泛责任"。在新环境下,对于名誉权和隐私权的法律保护亦应适应这种变化,有效维护新媒介技术的充分利用和人格权保护的平衡。     

It depends whose data are being shared: considerations for genomic data sharing policies

There is an urgent need for consistent data sharing policies that promote the advancement of science while respecting the values and interests of those providing their genetic data for research. Responding to the article of Jalayne J. Arias, Genevieve Pham-Kanter, and Eric G. Campbell, ‘The Growth and Gaps of Genetic Data Sharing Policies in the United States’, this commentary further explores the challenges of human subjects’ protection in existing data sharing policies. We will elaborate on the need for data sharing policies to accommodate variation in individual and group preferences around data sharing and privacy concerns by comparing our previously published data on patients’ and parents’ consent to data sharing and attitudes about privacy to data from focus groups with HIV-positive, underserved individuals who were asked about their willingness to participate in genetic research and share their data broadly. These studies support the observation of Arias, Pham-Kanter, and Campbell that researchers, and funding agencies will need to balance the privacy interests of groups as well as individuals in future genomic data sharing policies.     

电子商务中的消费者权益保护问题研究

电子商务以因特网为交易平台,而网络空间开放性、无国界的特点突破了传统商务在时间和空间上的限制,使电子商务获得了空前发展。但是电子商务发展过程中出现的种种损害消费者权益的情形给现行消费者权益保护法律带来了严峻挑战,也阻碍了电子商务的发展。在对电子商务背景下消费者权益保护中出现的问题进行深入分析的基础上,试图构建电子商务中的消费者权益保护体系,以期对相关立法有所裨益。     

警察权的行使及其规制

警察权是国家执法权的重要组成部分,其作用在于维护社会秩序和安全。警察权是把双刃剑,具有利害双重性。既要充分发挥警察权的预期效果,又要抑制警察权的负效应。对警察权的规制要遵行法律规制原则、私权保障原则和程序正义原则。     

论私录视听资料的证据能力

未经当事人同意而录制的视听材料有可能涉及被录制者的隐私.之所以规定不得采用法律所禁止的方法收集视听资料,是为了保护当事人的隐私权.传统理论认为侵犯被录制者隐私权的私录资料不具有合法性.但隐私与隐私权并不相同,对私录资料证据能力的认识须从解释论与立法论的角度分别考虑.从解释论角度,如果私录资料侵犯了他人的隐私权,那么该证据资料便会因不具备合法性而被排除在诉讼之外;如果只涉及隐私而未侵犯隐私权,便可具有证据能力.而在立法论,那些即使侵犯了隐私权的私录资料也同样具有证据能力,可以作为认定案件事实的根据,但这并不妨碍隐私权人在本案诉讼结束之后对侵权人另行提起诉讼保护自己的隐私权.     

Polygraphs: Erosion of the privacy right

The polygraph is a machine which invades previously private regions in the human being. Its operation is often viewed simplistically and lacking in danger. Such naivete is the subject of this comment. The paper considers the mechanics of polygraph operation, and its theoretical basis; the legal admissibility of the polygraph in a variety of settings, and lastly the impact the polygraph has upon our private lives.Clearly, the polygraph intrudes on the private regions of each individual, and this frightening fact is cause enough to consider the human, social and constitutional implications of its use. The project considers the reliability factor of the polygraph and its questionable use in personnel and business settings; its use in disciplinary procedures and labor arbitration, as well as reviews its place in judicial process and criminal review.Most critically the paper attempts to arrive at a constitutional basis for restrictions on its use in the private sector. Ingenious arguments have been made by opponents of the polygraph, and this paper reviews the substance and content of these constitutional arguments.     

A historian's view on the right to be forgotten

This essay explores the consequences for historians of the ‘right to be forgotten', a new concept proposed by the European Commission in 2012. I first explain that the right to be forgotten is a radical variant of the right to privacy and clarify the consequences of the concept for the historical study of public and private figures. I then treat the hard cases of spent and amnestied convictions and of internet archives. I further discuss the applicability of the right to be forgotten to dead persons as part of the problem of posthumous privacy, and finally point to the ambiguity of the impact of the passage of time. While I propose some compromise solutions, I also conclude that a generalized right to be forgotten would lead to the rewriting of history in ways that impoverish our insights not only into anecdotal lives but also into the larger trends of history.     

The right to be forgotten – a Dutch perspective

This paper will be investigate to what extent the right to be forgotten as proposed by the European Commission is already recognized in Dutch tort law. The focus of this paper will be on the existence and the desirability of such a right and not on questions of enforcement. It is submitted that although Dutch law does not recognize the right to be forgotten as such, several judicial decisions can be identified that afford protection to interests that are also protected by the proposed right to be forgotten. This indicates that in the Netherlands a right to be forgotten in some form or another might have developed over time but this would have been a lengthy affair. A more precise formulation of this right by the legislator is therefore welcomed. It has been remarked that the name ‘right to be forgotten’ may give rise to unrealistic expectations but the Dutch experience shows that people do not seem to be very aware of their rights. ‘A right to be forgotten’ – however imprecise from a legal viewpoint – might be catchy enough to remedy this.     

The Italian perspective of the right to oblivion

This paper gives a brief overview of the state of the art relating to the right to oblivion in Italy. Three major issues on the way this right is perceived, recognized and protected are presented. First, the strict link between the right to oblivion and the right to information is discussed. Then, the role of the internet revolution in enlarging the protection to different situations related to the right to oblivion is analyzed. Finally, a reflection on the distinction between the right to oblivion and the right to data protection and specifically from the right to erasure, anonymization or blocking of data that have been processed unlawfully is drafted.     

Narratives about privacy and forgetting in English law

This paper examines narratives about the right of privacy in the UK. It argues that until relatively recently the dominant narrative was one that associated privacy with celebrity claimants and media defendants. Other narratives, such as those concerned with digital privacy and data protection, did not feature as prominently. But changing technological and social contexts mean that these narratives are now understood to be of immense importance too. This paper explores these narratives against the backdrop of the European Commission's proposals for a ‘right to be forgotten’ (now relabelled a ‘right to erasure’), the subject-matter of this special issue, as well as the 2014 Google Spain judgment. The paper emphasises the importance of forgetting as an aspect of the right to privacy and argues that while the UK legislator and courts have been slow to give effect to erasure remedies, they must now start exploring the bounds of legal possibility in order to meet the challenges of the digital age.