网络隐私侵权之法律规制

信息时代人们的生活与网络的联系越来越密切。网络在带给人们极大便利的同时也带来了诸多负面问题。其中公众最为无奈的当数网络隐私侵权问题。探讨网络隐私侵权行为之构成、网络隐私侵权行为违法性之阻却及网络隐私侵权行为之法律规制,对净化网络环境,保护网络隐私权十分必要。     

Social messengers as the new frontier of organization-public engagement: A WeChat study

Mobile-based social messengers have overtaken social networking sites as the new frontier for organizations to engage online stakeholders. This study provides one of the earliest empirical investigations on the antecedents and relational outcomes of pubic engagement with companies via WeChat—one of the world’s most popular social messaging apps. Publics’ social messenger dependency and privacy perception of the medium are found to effectively drive public engagement, which in turn enhances organization-public relationships. Strategic guidelines based on the study findings are provided.     

公众网络反腐与政府官员隐私权保护二律背反之考量

网络反腐是以互联网为信息交换媒介的一种新型反腐方式,已经成为社会公众反腐重要阵地,对汇集民意参政议政、监督公权力运行、形成官民互动的良性监督机制具有重要的现实意义.公众网络反腐具备反腐正面作用的同时,也可能出现损害相关主体隐私权的负面影响,公众网络反腐与政府官员隐私权保护的协调应在基本原则上坚持比例原则、克减原则,限制政府官员的隐私权,在制度安排上健全政府官员的日常行为公开制度、财产申报制度和公民的知情法律制度.     

个人信息权保护的法律界限研究——基于欧洲人权法院50个判例的分析

个人信息权是一种新兴权利,与日益扩张的国家监控权针锋相对.《欧洲人权公约》第八条从个人和家庭隐私的角度,对个人信息权作出了规定.欧洲人权法院的50个相关判例涵盖英国、法国、德国、瑞士、俄罗斯等不同法系的国家,涉及健康隐私、私密声音、私人通信等个人信息,缔约国败诉率高达三分之二,明确表明保护个人信息的法律限度:对个人信息的收集、储存、使用、披露、查询、删除等监控和干预必须依法、善意、必要进行,以充分保障人权.我国应当以“保护为原则,干涉为例外”,立法保护个人信息权,夯实合法性基础;合理善用国家监控权,找准合目的方向;最低程度平衡权益冲突,把握合比例性原则,进一步完善个人信息的法律保护.     

美国警方使用面部识别技术与公民隐私保护问题

警方使用面部识别技术抓拍行人的面部特征,然后进行数据库比对的行为,是否侵犯公民享有的美国宪法第四修正案的隐私权呢？对此,美国学界有两种观点：侵犯隐私和不侵犯隐私。不侵犯隐私的主要理由是“公开场所无隐私”;侵犯隐私的主要理由是该技术捕获到了公民的面部详细信息,面部追踪技术锁定个人的位置信息,以及经过数据库比对后披露的更为详尽的个人信息。在我国,也有国家执法机关使用该技术进行监控的案例,以及企业为了安全而使用面部识别技术的行为。为了保护公民的隐私,我们可以借鉴美国的相关判例和学说,对以上使用面部识别技术的行为加以规制。     

Algorithmic IF … THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power

ABSTRACT

The introduction to this special issue suggests we need to develop ‘a greater understanding of what might be thought of as the social power of algorithms'. In this paper, ‘social power’ will be critically scrutinised through a study of the entanglement of algorithmic rules with contemporary video-based surveillance technologies. The paper will begin with an analysis of algorithmic ‘IF?…?THEN’ rules and the conditions (IF) and consequences (THEN) that need to be accomplished for an algorithm to be said to succeed. The work of achieving conditions and consequences demonstrates that the form of ‘power’ in focus is not solely attributable to the algorithm as such, but operates through distributed agency and can be noted as a network effect. That is, the conditions and consequences of algorithmic rules only come into being through the careful plaiting of relatively unstable associations of people, things, processes, documents and resources. From this we can say that power is not primarily social in the sense that algorithms alone create an impact on society, but social in the sense of power being derived through algorithmic associations. The paper argues that this kind of power is most clearly visible in moments of breakdown, failure or other forms of trouble, whereby algorithmic conditions and consequences are not met and the careful plaiting of associations has to be brought to the fore and examined. It is through such examinations that the associational dependencies more than the social power of algorithms are made apparent.     

‘Hypernudge’: Big Data as a mode of regulation by design

ABSTRACT

This paper draws on regulatory governance scholarship to argue that the analytic phenomenon currently known as ‘Big Data’ can be understood as a mode of ‘design-based’ regulation. Although Big Data decision-making technologies can take the form of automated decision-making systems, this paper focuses on algorithmic decision-guidance techniques. By highlighting correlations between data items that would not otherwise be observable, these techniques are being used to shape the informational choice context in which individual decision-making occurs, with the aim of channelling attention and decision-making in directions preferred by the ‘choice architect’. By relying upon the use of ‘nudge’ – a particular form of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives, these techniques constitute a ‘soft’ form of design-based control. But, unlike the static Nudges popularised by Thaler and Sunstein [(2008). Nudge. London: Penguin Books] such as placing the salad in front of the lasagne to encourage healthy eating, Big Data analytic nudges are extremely powerful and potent due to their networked, continuously updated, dynamic and pervasive nature (hence ‘hypernudge’). I adopt a liberal, rights-based critique of these techniques, contrasting liberal theoretical accounts with selective insights from science and technology studies (STS) and surveillance studies on the other. I argue that concerns about the legitimacy of these techniques are not satisfactorily resolved through reliance on individual notice and consent, touching upon the troubling implications for democracy and human flourishing if Big Data analytic techniques driven by commercial self-interest continue their onward march unchecked by effective and legitimate constraints.     

关于我国隐私权立法的思考

隐私权作为一种典型的私权,是一项独立的人格权。随着社会的进步和发展,人的法律意识越来越强烈,关 于隐私权引起的法律诉讼日益上升。然而,我国至今还没有为隐私权独立立法,导致实践操作较差。因此,为隐私权立 法刻不容缓。     

对隐私权的几点思考

隐私权是公民的一项重要的人身权。通过对隐私权概念从主客体方面进行分析、以及我国目前对隐私权的相关立法做阐述分析,目的在于就相关的看法和建议与大家共同探讨。