多元治理背景下个人信息“知情同意规则”的缓和机制  

Mitigating Mechanisms for the“Informed Consent Rule”of Personal Information in a Pluralistic Governance Context

作　　者：赵申豪 ZHAO Shenhao(School of Law,Sun Yat-sen University,Guangzhou 510275,China)

机构地区：[1]中山大学法学院,广州510275

出　　处：《西南政法大学学报》2025年第2期129-142,共14页Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目“个人信息侵权下游损害赔偿的二元规制路径研究”(24SFB3020)。

摘　　要：《民法典》与《个人信息保护法》对个人信息采取了“强保护模式”。信息主体对其个人信息具有极强的支配力,这虽然为信息主体提供了周全的保护,但同时也增加了个人信息自由流通的制度成本。相较于国家强制力,声誉机制、面子机制等非正式社会控制方式具有低成本、高效率等优势,在我国执法资源短缺的背景下,它们可以作为辅助性社会治理手段来减轻公权力机关的执法负荷。然而,个人信息的“强保护模式”阻碍了信息传递,从而压缩了以信息传递机制为基础的声誉机制与面子机制的“生存空间”,破坏了多元的社会治理体系。为此,有必要通过限制“知情同意规则”的适用范围来缓和个人信息保护与非正式社会控制间的紧张关系。在解释论上,《民法典》第998条可作为限制“知情同意规则”的法律依据。对于因社会治理需要而实施的个人信息公开行为,即使其没有经过信息主体的同意,也不是以公共利益为目的,但裁判者在综合权衡行为目的、影响范围等因素后,仍可认定其不构成个人信息侵权。The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China and the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China adopt a“high-level protection model”for personal information,granting individuals significant control over their personal data.While this model provides comprehensive safeguards for data subjects,it also raises the institutional cost of enabling the free flow of personal information.Compared to state enforcement mechanisms,informal social control methods—such as reputation mechanisms and face-saving mechanisms—offer the advantages of lower costs and higher efficiency.In the context of limited enforcement resources in China,these informal mechanisms can serve as supplementary tools to alleviate the enforcement burden on public authorities.However,the“high-level protection model”impedes the transmission of information,thereby restricting the operational scope of reputation and face-saving mechanisms,which rely on information flow,and undermining the pluralistic social governance system.To address this tension,it is necessary to limit the scope of application of the“Informed-Consent Rule.”From an interpretative perspective,Article 998 of the Civil Code provides a legal basis for such limitations.Disclosures of personal information made for purposes of social governance—despite lacking the data subject’s consent and not serving a public interest—may nonetheless be deemed non-infringing if adjudicators consider factors such as the purpose of the act,its scope of impact,and the public nature of the data subject’s profession.

关 键 词：个人信息保护 声誉机制 面子机制 动态系统论 

分 类 号：DF526[政治法律—民商法学]