检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:李维 Li Wei(Law School of Hainan University,Haikou 570228)
出 处:《中阿科技论坛(中英文)》2025年第2期153-157,共5页China-Arab States Science and Technology Forum
基 金:海南省研究生创新课题“自贸港背景下公共数据开放平台的法律困境及破解对策”(QHYS2023-158)。
摘 要:《中华人民共和国个人信息保护法》第二十四条标志着算法解释权在制度层面得以确立。然而,算法属于企业的商业秘密,用户的算法解释诉求与企业对算法的保密需要之间存在冲突,致使算法解释权在适用上存在障碍。面对两者之间的冲突,无论是主张全然废除算法解释权,还是算法解释权当然优先于商业秘密保护的观点,都难以自圆其说。文章认为,应然的破解之道在于改造算法解释权的适用要件,即引入“算法有限解释论”。在算法有限解释论下,应从严把握“对个人权益有重大影响”这一权利行使前提,且算法解释的内容应限定为算法运行逻辑而非算法本身,用户还应承担初步的证明责任,从而最大限度地实现算法解释权与商业秘密保护的冲突化解。Article 24 of the Personal Information Protection Law of the PRC marks the establishment of the right to interpret algorithms at the institutional level.However,algorithms are trade secrets,and there is a conflict between users'demands for algorithm interpretation and enterprises'confidentiality of algorithms,resulting in dilemma in the application of algorithm interpretation rights.Faced with the conflict,both the abolition of algorithm interpretation rights and prioritizing algorithm interpretation over trade secret protection are difficult to justify.To this end,the article believes that the way to solve the issue lies in modifying the applicable requirements of the interpretation power of algorithms,that is,introducing the limited interpretation theory.Under this theory,the premise of exercising the right——"have a significant impact on individual rights"should be followed,and the content of interpretation should be limited to the algorithm's operating logic rather than the algorithm itself.In addition,users should also bear the preliminary burden of proof,in order to resolve conflicts between algorithm interpretation rights and trade secret protection.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.170