来源：http://www.wfzhongtebao.com 点击次数： 发布时间：2018-09-15
The way to carry out the right of privacy must be the road of conflict of interest and harmony. Then, how should we harmoniously benefit all kinds of interests so as to maximize the right limit of privacy? In my opinion, it is necessary to strictly limit the scope of electronic eye monitoring in the public sphere and the need for legal equipment. At the same time, the following criteria should be observed in the field of electronic eye monitoring.
First, constraint monitoring criteria. Both the Federal Material Protection Act of Germany and the Privacy Act of the United States have clear rules governing the direct criteria of collection or collection, which mainly refer to the fact that personal materials should be made available to the parties with the knowledge of the parties concerned.
Direct collection, but no secret collection. Detailed to the monitoring of the electronic eye, the camera equipment should have warning signs, so that the parties clearly know that they are under the supervision of the electronic eye.
Second, the intention is to bind the rules. That is, it is necessary for the electronic eye to have a reasonable, legitimate and clear intention, and the information obtained by monitoring can not be used outside this particular intention. For example, the material obtained by the public security organs on the basis of video surveillance can only be used for the purpose of maintaining public order, and can not be used for any other purpose except for clear rules of law.
Third, strict confidentiality guidelines. Electronic eye monitoring is not only supervised but also manipulated according to the information obtained from supervision. And the most aggressive right to privacy is the improper transmission of information obtained by supervision, so this criterion is particularly important.
Fourth, duty rules. The enforceability of the non-mandatory and guaranteed criteria is obviously reduced. If the parties can not be effectively safeguarded, the infringement will occur in large numbers when the invasion of privacy occurs in electronic eye monitoring.
There are no clear laws and regulations on electronic eye monitoring in the world, but the legislation on privacy and personal information maintenance in Europe and America has been perfected, and the problems caused by electronic eye monitoring can be contained in the relevant legislation. However, China's privacy protection system is not perfect, especially in the state compensation for the lack of compensation for energy damage caused by the absence of privacy protection ordinance. Nowadays, most of the regulations on electronic eyes published by Beijing, Chongqing, Chengdu and other cities are set up from the angle of administrative management. Although each regulation emphasizes the protection of privacy, other rules are too simple to be enforceable, and the rules are too complicated to be enforced. Meanwhile, the detailed requirements are different, and the maintenance of privacy rights can not be perfected.
We believe that the protection of privacy should be mainly based on civil law, while other laws and regulations should be supplemented. Under the current statutory structure, we should speed up the civil legislation of the right to privacy, clarify the power scale, power and safeguard of the right to privacy, and on the other hand, we should formulate a consistent administrative regulation by the State Council to standardize the electronic eye monitoring at the administrative level, so as to delimit the privacy interests and public interests. A relatively clear demarcation line and the addition of relevant rules on compensation for energetic hazards to the national compensation law at appropriate times may be ruled by special legislation. In this way, the right to privacy can be provided with a perfect maintenance structure to better harmonize its conflict with the public interests represented by the electronic eye.