信息处理者侵害个人信息权益的法律救济研究
Research on Legal Remedy of Information Processor’s Infringement of Personal Information Rights and Interests
DOI: 10.12677/ojls.2024.127624, PDF,   
作者: 李 坤:长春理工大学法学院,吉林 长春;高跃军:吉林省长春新区人民检察院,吉林 长春;刘 蓓:长春工业大学法学研究所,吉林 长春
关键词: 侵权救济私益诉讼公益诉讼Tort Relief Private Interest Litigation Public Interest Litigation
摘要: 当下信息数据技术发展迅速,大数据与算法的应用早已深入民用领域。在此背景下,个人信息保护面临着新的挑战。在信息处理过程中,信息处理者处于支配地位,而个人信息又具有商业价值,致使近年来侵害个人信息权益的案件呈上升趋势。个信法出台前主要在私益诉讼中以侵害隐私权、一般人格权的方式进行诉讼。在其出台后,因保护个人信息而发生争议的案件有所增长,以公益诉讼进行维权的案件数量也开始增加。但由于诉讼成本高,举证难度大等问题也随之浮现出来。对此,应适当借鉴欧盟《GDPR》举证责任分配与美国的《CPRA》的CPF制度,用来健全保护个人信息权益的机制,使得个人信息权益的保护与个人信息的流通与高效利用并驾齐驱。
Abstract: With the rapid development of information and data, the application of big data and algorithms has been deep in the civil field. In this context, the protection of personal information is facing new challenges. In the process of information processing, information processors are in a dominant position, and personal information has commercial value, resulting in an increasing trend of cases of infringement of personal information rights and interests in recent years. Before the enactment of the private letter law, litigation was mainly carried out in the way of infringing the right to privacy and general personality rights in private interest litigation. After its introduction, the number of disputes arising from the protection of personal information increased, and the number of cases for the protection of rights through public interest litigation also began to increase. However, due to the high cost of litigation, the difficulty of proof and other problems have also emerged. In this regard, appropriate reference should be made to the EU GDPR burden of proof allocation and the CPF system of the US CPRA to improve the mechanism for protecting personal information rights and interests, so that the protection of personal information rights and interests and the circulation and efficient use of personal information can go hand in hand.
文章引用:李坤, 高跃军, 刘蓓. 信息处理者侵害个人信息权益的法律救济研究[J]. 法学, 2024, 12(7): 4393-4399. https://doi.org/10.12677/ojls.2024.127624

参考文献

[1] 金荣标, 叶高, 叶家红. 个人信息权保护的法理基础[J]. 湖南科技学院学报, 2011, 32(7): 134-136.
[2] 齐爱民. 信息法原论: 信息法的产生与体系化[M]. 武汉: 武汉大学出版社, 2010: 85.
[3] 李钰. 利益平衡视角下个人信息问题的治理进路[J]. 现代法治研究, 2021(1): 119.
[4] 张新宝. 论个人信息权益的构造[J]. 中外法学, 2021, 33(5): 1144-1166.
[5] 王福华. 公益诉讼的法理基础[J]. 法制与社会发展, 2022, 28(2): 59.
[6] 孔祥稳. 网络平台信息内容规制结构的公法反思[J]. 环球法律评论, 2020, 42(2): 136.
[7] Kaminski, M.E. (2019) Binary Governance: Lessons from the GDPR’s Approach to Algorithmic Accountability. Southern California Law Review, 92, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[8] 程啸. 侵权责任法[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2021: 49-52, 106-107, 116-129.
[9] 孔祥稳. 论个人信息保护的行政规制路径[J]. 行政法学研究, 2022(1): 131.
[10] Strugala, R. (2020) Art. 82 GDPR: Strict Liability or Liability Based on Fault? European Journal of Privacy Law & Technologies, Special Issue, 71-79.
[11] 田野, 张耀文. 个人信息侵权因果关系的证明困境及其破解——以相当因果关系理论为进路[J]. 中南大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 28(1): 58-69.
[12] 赵贝贝. 个人信息私法救济中的“损害赔偿”困境与应对路径[J]. 财经法学, 2022(5): 95.
[13] 许身健, 张涛. 个人信息保护检察公益诉讼的法理基础与制度完善[J]. 法学论坛, 2023, 38(1): 95.
[14] 项焱, 张雅雯. 大数据时代个人信息无形损害的正当性基础与认定规则[J]. 江苏行政学院报, 2022(5): 127-136.
[15] 张继红, 文露. 美国加州隐私权法案评述[J]. 中国信息安全, 2021(5): 55.