摘要
个人数据上汇集多方主体的不同性质的权益,它不同于一般的私权物品,也不宜作为公共用品。依据个人数据在不同场景中所涉权益的性质,我国刑法对个人数据的保护共有四种模式,即经济秩序保护模式、人格权保护模式、物权保护模式与公共秩序保护模式。考察刑法对个人数据的保护,不足之处在于:对数据滥用的行为缺乏必要的规制;有些罪名的适用无法准确揭示相应行为的不法本质;犯罪化不足与犯罪化过度的问题并存;对数据主体权益的保障显得不足。就刑法保护框架的合理化而言,需要在四个方面实现观念性的转变。个人数据虽具有财产或经济属性的面向,但不应归入财物或知识产权的范畴;虚拟财产不具备财物的特性,不应在一般意义上作为传统财产犯罪的对象。有必要从立法论与解释论两个层面,对我国刑法对个人数据的四种保护模式作出相应的调整。
Personal data involve different rights and interests of multiple subjects,which makes them different from ordinary private goods,and meanwhile they are not suitable to be regarded as public goods.According to the nature of the rights and interests of personal data in different scenes,the criminal law of China provides four protection modes for personal data,namely,economic order protection mode,personality right protection mode,traditional property right protection mode and public order protection mode.These four protection modes focus on the wrongdoings of illegally getting data,not on those of data misuse,and they not only can not reveal the actual nature of the wrongdoings in violating data interests,but also must bring about the problems of both over-criminalization and under-criminalization.In addition,they do not provide sufficient protection for the rights and interests of data subjects.As far as the protection framework of criminal law for personal data is concerned,it is necessary to realize the conceptual change in four aspects.Although personal data has something of property or economic attribute,it should not be classified into the category of traditional property or intellectual property;virtual property does not have the characteristics of traditional property and should not be regarded as the object of property crimes in a general meaning.All of the four protection modes should be adjusted to a different extent in the two levels of legislation and judicial application.
出处
《比较法研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第5期35-50,共16页
Journal of Comparative Law
基金
清华大学文科专项课题“网络时代刑法理论的体系性创新”(2019THZWLJ04)的阶段性成果。
