摘要
按照目前的通说,隐私权主要被认为是保护自然人个人利益的主观权利。"不干涉"原则被用以确定此权利在特定情况下是否受到影响。根据该原则,认定隐私权被侵犯必须证明第三方"干涉"行为的存在。将"干涉"标准应用于传统的隐私侵犯行为(例如第三方进入个人住宅或窃听私人谈话)时效果很好,但是在现代化的数据驱动技术背景下,通常很难证实对个人权利或自由的实际具体"干涉"。因此,越来越多的隐私权学者主张使用另一种原则,即共和主义的"无支配"原则。该原则的核心不是要讨论是否存在对权利的"干涉";相反,它着眼于现有的权力关系以及权力滥用的可能性。有趣的是,欧洲人权法院近年来在处理复杂的数据驱动相关案件时,似乎接受了共和主义的隐私保护方法。
As it is currently regulated,the right to privacy is predominantly conceived as a subjective right protecting the individual interests of natural persons.In order to determine whether this right has been affected in a specific situation,the so-called‘non-interference’principle is applied.Using this concept,it follows that the right to privacy is undermined if an‘infringement’with that right by a third party can be demonstrated.Although the‘infringement’-criterion works well when applied to more traditional privacy violations,such as a third party entering the home of an individual or eavesdropping on a private conversation,with respect to modern datadriven technologies,it is often very difficult to demonstrate an actual and concrete‘infringement’on a person’s right or freedom.Therefore,an increasing number of privacy scholars advocate the use of another principle,namely the republican idea of‘non-domination’.At the core of this principle is not the question of whether there has been an‘interference’with a right;rather,it looks at existing power relations and the potential for the abuse of power.Interestingly,in recent times,the European Court of Human Rights seems to accept the republican approach to privacy when it deals with complex data driven cases.
作者
张伟(译)
李冰清(译)
Bart van der Sloot(Translated);ZHANG Wei;LI Bingqing
出处
《国际法学刊》
2021年第1期131-153,158,共24页
Journal of International Law
关键词
共和主义
不干涉
无支配
大数据
隐私
republicanism
non-interference
non-domination
big data privacy
