已公開個人資料的隱私保護可能－司法陽光網引發的隱私保護爭議

Privacy Protection for Publicly Available Personal Data- Privacy Protection Issues of Sunshine Judiciary Website

10.6509/TLM.2016.6709.07

張陳弘(Chen-Hung Chang)

資訊隱私 ； 馬賽克理論 ； 司法陽光網 ； 資料堆疊 ； 隱私權 ； Information Privacy ； Mosaic Theory ； Sunshine Judiciary Website ； Data Aggregation ； Right to Privacy

法令月刊

67卷9期（2016 / 09 / 01）

143 - 164

繁體中文

2015年11月17日民間司法改革基金會召開記者會發布「司法陽光網」上線服務。司法陽光網可供查詢司法官個人資訊，包含姓名、司法官訓練期別、性別、學經歷、職務經歷、獎懲記錄、相關新聞評論。惟該網站的設置引起司法官體系的群起反彈及部分法律學者的批評，認為此公開司法官個資的行為，恐違反個人資料保護法。此案例所衍生之隱私侵害爭議，適足突顯了傳統隱私保護理論下所發展而出的「公開／私密」二分法隱私保護標準，在新興資訊科技發展的影響下，應予修正。美國法院實務近年來所發展之馬賽克理論（mosaic theory），強調個資經過堆疊、組合、分析後，可能產生新的隱私保護需求（或新的隱私傷害可能）；傳統認為已公開個資不具合理隱私期待保護，應有修正之必要。職此，倘若司法陽光網設置合法性的理由主張，僅是「陽光網所揭露者皆屬於可公開找尋的資訊」，則論理上並不夠完備，進而會造成在司法陽光網的建置上，忽略資料堆疊可能造成的隱私傷害。關於馬賽克理論的引介運用，本文主張個人資料保護法第19條第1項第7款但書規定，是個可使用的立法媒介，以藉此有效因應科技發展在個資堆疊分析技術上，對於隱私保護所形成的新威脅。

In a press conference on November 17, 2015, the Judicial Reform Foundation announced the launch of the new website named Sunshine Judiciary-Know Your Judge. The website displays a personal profile for all Taiwanese judges and prosecutors, which contains their names, year of completion of judicial training, gender, education and professional experiences, award and disciplinary records, and a link to all media comments about the judge and prosecutor that is being searched. The judicial community sparked outrage toward the launch of the website; a number of law scholars also criticized that the website’s disclosure of judge’s personal information might have breached the Taiwanese Personal Data Protection Act. The growing privacy debate over the Sunshine Judiciary website mainly lies on the unsolved issue that whether the personal profi les posted on the Sunshine Judiciary website-generated from publicly available personal dataconstitute privacy invasion. This case has revealed the insufficiency of the traditional notion for privacy protection which adopts the dichotomy method to decide privacy protection, depending on whether the issue at stake involves public space or private realms since the development new technologies has blurred the line. The mosaic theory recently adopted by the U.S. courts has noted that the same piece of personal information might require privacy protection to resist new privacy risks after such information is aggregated, combined and analyzed. Such theory has changed the tradition privacy notion wherein personal information, after being made public, deserves no privacy protection. Given this, if the Judicial Reform Foundation’s only justification that no privacy invasion was caused since all personal information posted on the Sunshine Judiciary website was generated from publicly available information, this might not be a viable defense under scrutiny of the mosaic theory which argues that aggregated public information is still subject to privacy risk. This essay proposed that the mosaic theory can be introduced in privacy protection analysis in Taiwan when interpreting the last sentence of Item 7, Paragraph 1, Article 19 of the Taiwan Personal Data Protection Act in order to properly deal with new privacy challenges posed by the data aggregation technologies.

1. 李榮耕(2015)。科技定位監控與犯罪偵查：兼論美國近年GPS 追蹤法制及實務之發展。臺大法學論叢，44(3)，871-969。
   連結：
2. 吳景欽（2015），〈司法陽光網洩什麼密、犯什麼法？〉，《自由電子報》，http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/934917（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
3. 高榮志（2015），〈就事論事談司改〉，《蘋果即時》，http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20151130/742805/（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
4. 陳瑞仁（2015），〈民間司改會想死嗎〉，《蘋果即時》，http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/forum/20151123/737995/（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
5. 蔡沛琪（2015），〈司法陽光網 近千檢察官連署撤除〉，《Yahoo 奇摩新聞》，https://tw.news.yahoo.com/司法陽光網- 近千檢察官連署撤除-094320011.html（ 最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
6. 司法陽光網（2015），《關於我們》，http://sunshine.jrf.org.tw/about（ 最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
7. 葉德正、蕭博文（2015），〈羅瑩雪：陽光網恐崩解司法體系〉，《中時電子報》，http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20151124000360-260102（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
8. 法操司想傳媒（2015），〈司法陽光網， 陽光不陽光？〉，《蘋果即時》， http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20151125/740059/（ 最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
9. 民間司法改革基金會臉書專頁（2015），《重拾人民信任，司法需要陽光∼ 司法陽光網》，https://www.facebook.com/jrf.tw/videos/10153274916844077/（ 最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
10. 林鈺雄（2015），〈傾斜的舞台 迷思的司改〉，《自由電子報》，http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/934620（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/1）
11. Tsukayama, Hayley (2013), Judge Allows Law suit against Google's Gmail Scans to Move Forward, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/judge-allows-lawsuitagainst-googles-gmail-scans-tomove-forward/2013/09/26/3b4bedaa-26e4-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html (last visited: 2016/2/1).
12. Bellia, P. L.,Berman, P. S.,Frischmann, B,Post, D. G.(2011).Cyberlaw: Problems of Policy and Jurisprudence in the Information Age.St. Paul:Thomson/West.
13. Cate, F. H.,Cate, B. E.(2012).The Supreme Court and Information Privacy.International Data Privacy Law,2(4),255-267.
14. Chang, Chen-Hung(2015).Eye' son the Road Program in Taiwan - Information Privacy Issues under the Taiwan Personal Data Protection Act.John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law,31(2),145-190.
15. Chang, Chen-Hung(2015).New Technology, New Information Privacy: Social-Value-Oriented Information Privacy Theory.National Taiwan University Law Review,10(1),127-175.
16. Dery, George M., III(2014).Failing to Keep "Easy Cases Easy": Florida V. Jardines Refuses to Reconcile Inconsistencies in Fourth Amendment Privacy Law by Instead Focusing on Physical Trespass.Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review,47(2),451-480.
17. Gatewood, Jace C.(2014).District of Columbi a Jones and the Mosaic Theory - In Search of a Public Right of Privacy: The Equilibrium Effect of the Mosaic Theory.Nebraska Law Review,92(3),504-536.
18. Hartzog, W.,Stutzman, F.(2013).The Case for Online Obscurity.California Law Review,101(1),1-49.
19. Kerr, Orin S.(2012).The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment.Michigan Law Review,111(3),311-354.
20. Ohm, Paul(2012).The Fourth Amendment in a World Without Privacy.Mississippi Law Journal,81(5),1309-1355.
21. Pozen, David E.(2005).The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act.Yale Law Journal,115(3),628-679.
22. Rosen, Jeffrey(2000).The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America.New York:Random House.
23. Solove, Daniel J.(2008).Understanding Privacy.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
24. Solove, Daniel J.(2004).The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age.New York:New York University Press.

1. 林清汶(2020)。不動產交易實價登錄資訊全都露適法性之探討。軍法專刊，66(3)，33-47。
2. 林昕璇(2020)。論大規模政府監控之資訊隱私保障－評析美國聯邦法院相關裁判。臺灣民主季刊，17(2)，43-93。
3. 熊誦梅、溫祖德(2018)。從馬賽克理論（Mosaic Theory）談通訊使用者資料之法官保留－評智慧財產法院106年度刑智上易字第65號刑事判決。法令月刊，69(9)，34-51。
4. 張陳弘(2018)。新興科技下的資訊隱私保護：「告知後同意原則」的侷限性與修正方法之提出。臺大法學論叢，47(1)，201-297。
5. (2019)。從資訊自主權觀點探討人肉搜索之法律爭議。憲政時代，44(3)，269-314。