大数据隐私的身份悖谬及其法律对策

The Identity Paradox of Big Data Privacy and Its Legal Countermeasures

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

刘泽刚

归属院系：

行政法学院

作者：

刘泽刚

摘要：

大数据运营在收集使用大量身份信息的同时却无法赋予用户网络主体身份。这种身份悖谬是由互联网结构、大数据模式以及法律规范不足共同导致的,也意味着数据自决和意思自治难以实现,政府监管和法律保护才是当前信息隐私保护可行的主导机制。欧盟统一立法创设数据主体,并影响了印度、巴西等人口大国的数据保护立法。但硬性拔高隐私身份定位付出的法律和经济代价也是沉重的。美国依托消费者身份利用现有机制加强信息隐私监管的实用主义路径与其普通法传统契合且成本较低。我国信息隐私主体的现有法律定位模糊。未来立法宜正视互联网发展的现实,兼采欧美之长,适度提高信息隐私身份定位,但应避免设置副作用明显的权利。宜在加强对企业监管的同时,综合利用消费者权益保护等机制提升大数据隐私的保护质效。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2019-12-15

学科：

民商法学

收录：

北大核心期刊; CSSCI; 中国科技核心期刊

提交日期：

2019-12-25

引用参考：

刘泽刚. 大数据隐私的身份悖谬及其法律对策[J]. 浙江社会科学,2019(12):21-30+155.

  • dc.title
  • 大数据隐私的身份悖谬及其法律对策
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 刘泽刚
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Liu Zegang;School of Administrative Law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学行政法学院宪法教研室
  • dc.publisher
  • 浙江社会科学
  • dc.publisher
  • Zhejiang Social Sciences
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2019
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 12
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • No.280
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 21-30+155
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2019-12-15
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 个人信息;信息隐私;隐私保护;数据主体;消费者隐私
  • dc.subject
  • personal information;information privacy;protection of privacy;identity of data;privacy of consumer
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 大数据运营在收集使用大量身份信息的同时却无法赋予用户网络主体身份。这种身份悖谬是由互联网结构、大数据模式以及法律规范不足共同导致的,也意味着数据自决和意思自治难以实现,政府监管和法律保护才是当前信息隐私保护可行的主导机制。欧盟统一立法创设数据主体,并影响了印度、巴西等人口大国的数据保护立法。但硬性拔高隐私身份定位付出的法律和经济代价也是沉重的。美国依托消费者身份利用现有机制加强信息隐私监管的实用主义路径与其普通法传统契合且成本较低。我国信息隐私主体的现有法律定位模糊。未来立法宜正视互联网发展的现实,兼采欧美之长,适度提高信息隐私身份定位,但应避免设置副作用明显的权利。宜在加强对企业监管的同时,综合利用消费者权益保护等机制提升大数据隐私的保护质效。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Huge amount of information of consumers on the Internet have been collected by operation of data, while they can't obtain identity from it. The conflict in such phenomenon is resulted from construct of the Internet, mode of big data and lack of relevant law. And it also cannot be fundamentally resolved in a short time, which also means self-determination both in data and will is too hard to achieve. Therefore, supervision from government and protection of law is feasible leading mechanism for protection of privacy information at present. The mode of EU is idealist but also progressive, which establishes identity of data by unifying the lawmaking. The concept of identity of data takes effect on such countries with a large population as India, Brazil in lawmaking of protection of data. However, it will be a high price for us to pay both in law and economy for improving the orientation of identity of privacy arbitrarily. The mode of the U.S.A. is actually more realistic because its method matches tradition of common law, which strengthens its supervision on information privacy by making use of identity of consumers and existing mechanism. By contrast, legal orientation in China now is vague. As a result, future lawmaking in China should envisage the development in Internet, absorbing good from EU and America. At the same time, we should reasonably improving identity of privacy of data instead of setting up rights with obvious side-effect. Moreover, we shall comprehensively utilize mechanism like consumer protection to achieve a higher efficiency in protection for big data privacy,strengthening supervision on enterprises.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 20142014YBFX107;20182018YFC0830800
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2014年重庆市社会科学规划项目“大数据时代的隐私风险与法律规制变革研究”(2014YBFX107);2018年国家重点攻关项目“重点领域公益诉讼案件动态监督关键技术研究”(2018YFC0830800)的阶段性研究成果
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家科技攻关计划
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 33-1149/C
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1004-2253
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 1.221
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D923
回到顶部