全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

数据信托理论置于告知同意制度的突破与难题
The Breakthrough and Difficulty of the Data Trust Theory in the System of Inform-Consent

DOI: 10.12677/DS.2024.10134, PP. 237-244

Keywords: 告知同意,个人信息,数据信托理论,隐私协议
Inform-Consent
, Personal Information, Data Trust Theory, Privacy Policy

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

告知同意制度作为信息处理活动的正当性基础之一,虽然在实践中得到了广泛运用,但是施行效果却差强人意。隐私协议载体下,信息主体无法满足告知同意制度的“理性人”设想。在信息不平等关系中,告知同意制度既无法保障信息主体的实际知情,也无法保障其主观上的真实同意,该制度趋于形式化。数据信托理论的引入跳脱出了告知同意制度所带来的“信息主体–信息处理者”的双主体权利义务规制路径,一定程度上改善了双方的信息不平等关系。但是并没有改变告知同意制度的存在根本,只是将信息主体与处理者间的告知同意转嫁到了信息主体与信托人之间。此外,我国缺乏数据信托实践运用的理论基础和现实条件,数据信托理论在中国的发展道路依然任重道远。
As one of the legitimate bases of information processing activities, the system of inform-consent has been widely used in practice, but the implementation effect is not satisfactory. Under the privacy protocol, the information subject cannot satisfy the “rational person” assumption of the consent system. In the relationship of information inequality, the system of inform-consent can neither guarantee the actual knowledge of the information subject nor guarantee its subjective consent, so the system faces this formalization problem. The introduction of the data trust theory breaks away from the two-subject rights and obligations regulation path of “information subject-information processor” brought about by the inform-consent system, and improves the information inequality relationship between the two parties to a certain extent. However, it does not change the fundamental existence of the system of inform-consent, but transfers the informed consent between the information subject and the processor to the information subject and the trustee. In addition, China lacks the theoretical basis and realistic conditions for the practical application of data trust, and the development of data trust theory in China still has a long way to go.

References

[1]  褚婧一. “用户-平台”关系中告知同意规则修正的路径选择[J]. 苏州大学学报(法学版), 2023, 10(2): 61-74.
[2]  韩旭至. 个人信息与个人隐私的区分[J]. 网络法律评论, 2016, 20(2): 88-111.
[3]  Bar-Gill, O., Marrota-Wurgle, F. and Ben-Shahar, O. (2017) Searching for the Common Law: The Quantitative Approach of the Restatement of Consumer Contracts. The University of Chicago Law Review, 84, 7.
[4]  Klass, G. (2019) Empiricism and Privacy Policies in the Restatement of Consumer Contract Law. Yale Journal on Regulation, 36, 45-115.
[5]  京东法律研究院. 欧盟数据宪章《一般数据保护条例》GDPR评述及实务指引[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2018: 44-45.
[6]  Schwartz, P.M. and Peifer, K.-N. (2017) Transatlantic Data Privacy Law. The Georgetown Law Journal, 115, 138-146.
[7]  高富平. 论个人信息处理中的个人权益保护——“个保法”立法定位[J]. 学术月刊, 2021, 53(2): 107-124.
[8]  丁晓东. 隐私政策的多维解读:告知同意性质的反思与制度重构[J]. 现代法学, 2023, 45(1): 34-48.
[9]  辛琳. 信息不对称理论研究[J]. 嘉兴学院学报, 2001(3): 38-42.
[10]  范为. 大数据时代个人信息保护的路径重构[J]. 环球法律评论, 2016, 38(5): 92-115.
[11]  菲利普?津巴多, 罗伯特?约翰逊, 薇薇安?麦卡恩. 津巴多普通心理学[M]. 钱静, 黄珏苹, 译. 北京: 北京联合出版公司, 2017: 115.
[12]  Laudon, K. (1996) Markets and Privacy. Communications of the ACM, 39, 92-104.
https://doi.org/10.1145/234215.234476
[13]  Edwards, L. (2004) The Problem with Privacy: A Modest Proposal. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 18, 313-344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360086042000276762
[14]  翟志勇. 论数据信托: 一种数据治理的新方案[J]. 东方法学, 2021(4): 61-76.
[15]  徐化耿. 论私法中的信任机制——基于信义义务与诚实信用的例证分析[J]. 法学家, 2017(4): 30-43+176.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413