题名

競爭秩序下的消費者保護在數位經濟的大數據時代中個人資料保護的角色

并列篇名

The Consumer Protection of Personal Data against Unfair Competition in the Era of Digital Economy with Big Data

作者

程法彰(Fa-Chang Cheng)

关键词

個人資料保護 ； 漸進創新理論 ； 競爭秩序 ； 反競爭 ； 消費者保護 ； personal data protection ； incremental innovation theory ； unfair competition ； anti-competition ； consumer protection

期刊名称

高大法學論叢

卷期/出版年月

18卷1期（2022 / 09 / 01）

页次

129 - 173

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

在數位經濟的大數據時代下，如何取得數據的商業利用與個人資料保護的平衡點，是現今各國都必須面臨的重要議題。在取得平衡的過程中，如何面對數據跨境流動保護落差的爭議，則是本文切入議題討論的角度。文中嘗試藉由類比個人資料保護法益平衡難題與研發創新的難度，提出漸進式的強化個人資料保護模式，亦即是以現有的法規範作個人資料保護補充，相較於以全新的個人資訊保護內容增加規範，或許更能達到彌補個人資料保護落差的預期效果。藉由利用競爭秩序的反競爭概念，作為強化個人資料保護的實踐上，對於界定市場與反競爭秩序效果所產生證明上的挑戰，以及將帶有人格權性質的個人資料隱私予以財產化的做法，需要作理論上的進一步論述，使得反競爭概念的選項在現階段並非作為常態性執法依據的合適選項。相反的，利用競爭秩序下的消費者保護概念，不但可以避免前述界定市場與證明非價格因素的反競爭秩序效果難題，同時也可以減少個人資料隱私財產化的潛在爭議。因此我國在沒有美國的概括式不公平類型化條文前提下，消費者保護下的定型化契約可以針對不同行為類型作出彈性的保護，對於目前在數位經濟時代下關於個人資料保護的定位上仍在拉扯的法益衡量現況，或許是更適合的選項。
英文摘要

In the era of digital economy with big data, how to strike a balance between commercial use of personal data and its protection is imminent to countries around the world. This article primarily focuses to solve the discrepancy of personal data protection due to cross-border data flow in the wake of reaching the above-mentioned balance. This article attempts to analogize between difficulties to strike such balance and difficulties to develop innovation for applying incremental innovation theory. That is this article suggests to supplement personal data protection with existent legal remedies, which could reach better outcome of compensating such protection discrepancy due to cross-border data flow. Unfair competition is bifurcated: anti-competition aspect and consumer protection aspect. This article concludes that anti-competition theory is not appropriate to be the legal basis as regulatory law enforcement to enhance personal data protection. The challenge of explaining market demarcation, proving anticompetitive effects, and further justifying propertization tendency of personal data, bolster such conclusion and need to be resolved. Conversely, consumer protection theory can avoid the mentioned challenge to supplement personal data protection by anti-competition theory. Therefore, in considering there is no generalized "unfair" provision in Taiwan's Consumer Protection Act, compared with the United States, the standard form contract mechanism in consumer protection might offer flexible application to personal data protection, pending upon different types of behavior, which makes consumer protection theory more suitable to the ongoing balance of interests in personal data protection.
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. Songkajorn, Yaninee,Thawesaengskulthai, Natcha(2010).Technology Management of Incremental Innovation: A New Perspective in Medical Innovation Products in Thailand.Journal of Quality,17(4),279-295.
    連結：
  2. 翁清坤(2016)。網路上隱私權政策之效力：以美國法為中心。臺大法學論叢，45(1)，151-248。
    連結：
  3. 葉志良,程致剛,楊東穎(2020)。5G 與消費者保障：以維護消費者資訊自主權為中心。台灣國際法學刊，16(1)，23-51。
    連結：
  4. Abbamonte, Giuseppe B.(2014).The protection of computer privacy under EU law.Columbia Journal of European Law,21,71-88.
  5. Albors-Llorens, Albertina(2014).Competition and Consumer Law in the European Union: Evolution and Convergence.Yearbook of European Law,33(1),163-193.
  6. Allen, Anita L.(2016).Protecting One’s Own Privacy in a Big Data Economy.Harvard Law Review Forum,130(2),71-78.
  7. Alvarez & Marsal, The antitrust implications of pricing algorithms, at https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/insights/antitrust-implications-pricing-algorithms (last visited 04/26/2022).
  8. Benitez, Kathleen,Loukides, Grigorios,Malin, Bradley(2010).Beyond Safe Harbor: Automatic Discovery of Health Information Deidentification Policy Alternatives.ACM International Health Informatics Symposium
  9. Blakesley, Ian R.,Yallop, Anca C.(2015).Consumer Perceptions about Digital Privacy and Online Data Sharing in the UK Insurance Sector.Marketing from Information to Decision,8,23-37.
  10. Bruening, Paula J.,Culnan, Mary J.(2016).Through a Glass Darkly: From Privacy Notices to Effective Transparency.North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology,17(4),515-579.
  11. Cassidy, Christopher M.,Chae, Bongsug(2006).Consumer Information use and Misuse in Electronic Business: An Alternative to Privacy Regulation.Information System Management,23(3),75-87.
  12. Cheng, Fa-Chang(2020).The Functionality of Unfair Competition in Privacy Protection in the Era of Big Data Commercial Applications.IPASJ International Journal of Information Technology,8(1),1-11.
  13. Cheng, Fa-Chang,Wang, Su-Man(2020).Information Privacy Protection under Anti-Money Laundering Legislation: An Empirical Study in Taiwan.MATHEMATICS,8(7),1048.
  14. Cheng, Fa-Chang,Wang, Yu Shan(2018).The do not Track Mechanism for Digital Footprint Privacy Protection in Marketing Applications.Journal of Business Economics Management,19(2),253-267.
  15. Cheperdak, Alison M.(2018).Double Trouble: Why Two Internet Privacy Enforcement Agencies are not Better than One for Businesses or Consumers.Federal Communication Law Journal,70,261-302.
  16. Cooper, James C.(2013).Privacy and Antitrust: Underpants Gnomes, the First Amendment, and Subjectivity.George Mason Law Review,20(4),1129-1146.
  17. Day, Gregory,Stemler, Abbey(2019).Infracompetitive Privacy.Iowa Law Review,105,61-106.
  18. DLA Piper-Germany: Federal Court summary judgment: FCO achieves stage victory against Facebook, at https://blogs.dlapiper.com/privacymatters/germany-federal-court-summary-judgment-fco-achieves-stage-victory-against-facebook/ (last visited 04/26/2022).
  19. Dobkin, Ariel(2018).Information Fiduciaries in Practice: Data Privacy and User Expectations.Berkeley Technology Law Journal,33(1),1-51.
  20. Edelman, Gilad, The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn’t Messing Around- Partisan antics aside, lawmakers on the antitrust subcommittee dished out some serious, probing questions to the CEOs of Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple, at https://www.wired.com/story/big-tech-hearing-proved-congress-not-messing-around/ (last visited 04/26/2022).
  21. EURACTIV- DSA Parliamentary Agreement Set to Hold in Key Committee Vote, at https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/dsa-parliamentary-agreement-set-to-hold-in-key-committee-vote/ (last visited 04/26/2022).
  22. European Commission, Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC 2 (2020), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0825&from=en (last visited 04/26/2022).
  23. European Commission Directorate- General for Justice and Consumers, Guide to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2016-08-01-ps-citizens-guide_en.pd_.pdf (last visited 04/26/2022).
  24. Federal Trade Commission- FTC Imposes $5 Billion Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook, at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions (last visited 04/26/2022).
  25. Federal Trade Commission- Written Statement of Noah Joshua Phillips Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Concerning The Invalidation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the Future of Transatlantic Data Flows, at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1584414/njp_december_9_2020_testimony_final.pdf (last visited 04/26/2022)
  26. Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change-Recommendations for Business and Policymakers, at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-report-protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations/120326privacyreport.pdf (last visited 04/26/2022).
  27. Fletcher, Amelia(2013).Modelling Naïve Consumers.BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS IN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER POLICY,U.K.:
  28. Halpern, Sue, Why Facebook Is Suddenly Afraid of the F.T.C., The New Yorker, at https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-facebook-is-suddenly-afraid-of-the-ftc (last visited 04/26/2022).
  29. Harker, Michael,Mehta, Judith(2013).Behavioural Remedies and Cost Benefit Analysis: A Cautionary Note.BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS IN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER POLICY,U.K.:
  30. Harold, Rosemary C.(2016).The FCC Forgot Something in Piecing Together its Complex Proposal for Broadband Privacy Regulation: Consumers.Federalist Society Review,17(3),62-70.
  31. Haucap, Justus(2019).,未出版
  32. Heinemann, Andreas(2015).Behavioural Antitrust- A “More Realistic Approach” to Competition Law.EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES ON BEHAVIOURAL LAW AND ECONOMICS,German:
  33. Hirsch, Dennis D.(2011).The Law and Policy of Online Privacy: Regulation, Self-Regulation, or Co-Regulation?.Seattle University Law Review,34(2),439-480.
  34. INPLP-German Federal Cartel Office vs. Facebook – the One Who Wins the Battle Might Not Win the War, at https://inplp.com/latest-news/article/german-federal-cartel-office-vs-facebook-the-one-who-wins-the-battle-might-not-win-the-war/ (last visited 04/26/2022).
  35. Knott, A.M.(2012).The Trillion-Dollar R&D Fix.Harvard Business Review
  36. Mantelero, Alessandro(2013).Competitive Value of Data Protection: the Impact of Data Protection Regulation on Online Behavior.International Data Privacy Law,4(3),229-238.
  37. McKinnon, Ashton(2014).Sacrificing Privacy for Convenience: The Need for Stricter FTC Regulations in an Age of Smartphone Surveillance.Journal of National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary,34(2),484-526.
  38. Moran, Jerry, Sen. Moran Introduces Bill Creating Clear Federal Standard for Consumer Data Privacy, at https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/4/sen-moran-introduces-bill-creating-clear-federal-standard-for-consumer-data-privacy (last visited 04/26/2022).
  39. OECD, Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data- Reconciling Risks and Benefits for Data Re-use across Societies, at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/276aaca8-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/276aaca8-en (last visited 04/26/2022).
  40. Ohlhausen, Maureen K.,Okuliar, Alexander P.(2015).Competition, Consumer Protection, and the Right [Approach] to Privacy.Antitrust Law Journal,80(1),121-156.
  41. Perkins Coie-Uniform Personal Data Protection Act Gains Approval, at https://www.privacyquicktipsblog.com/2021/08/uniform-personal-data-protection-act-gains-approval/ (last visited 04/26/2022).
  42. Phillips, Joe,Lee, Se-In(2015).Litigating Personal Data Disclosures against Information and Telecommunication Service Providers: A Korea-US Comparison.Journal of Korean Law,15(1),191-235.
  43. Portilla, Idoia(2018).Privacy Concerns about Information Sharing as Trade-Off for Personalized News.El Professional de la Información,27(1),19-26.
  44. Privacy Shield Framework, Privacy Shield Overview, International Trade Administration, at https://www.privacyshield.gov/program-overview (last visited 04/26/2022).
  45. Rostow, Theodore(2017).What Happens When an Acquaintance Buys your Data: A New Privacy Harm in the Age of Data.Yale Journal on Regulation,34(2),667-707.
  46. Scheuerer, Stefan(2021).Artificial Intelligence and Unfair Competition – Unveiling an Underestimated Building Block of the AI Regulation Landscape.GRUR International,70(9),834-845.
  47. Schoen, E. J.,Falchek, J. S.(2015).Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.: Sowing Mischief in Commercial Speech Protection.Southern Law Journal,25,1-24.
  48. Shy, Oz,Stenbacka, Rune(2016).Customer Privacy and Competition.Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,25(3),539-562.
  49. Stauber, Peter, Facebook’s Abuse Investigation in Germany and Some Thoughts on Cooperation between Antitrust and Data Protection Authorities, at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/facebooks-abuse-investigation-in-germany-and-some-thoughts-on-cooperation-between-antitrust-and-data-protection-authorities/(last visited 04/26/2022).
  50. Stuckey, Maurice E.(2010).Money is That What I Want?: Competition Policy and the Role of Behavioral Economic.Santa Clara Law Review,50,101-187.
  51. Swire, Peter P., Submitted Testimony to the Federal Trade Commission Behavioral Advertising Town Hall, at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/testimony_peterswire_/Testimony_peterswire_en.pdf (last visited 04/26/2022).
  52. 吳秀明(2021)。從行政法院判決看適用公平交易法第 25 條之共通原則與問題。公平交易季刊，29(3)，65-118。
  53. 宋皇志(2020)。大數據之競爭法議題－以限制競爭為中心。政大法學評論，163，49-138。
  54. 李世德(2019)。李世德（2019）。〈面對國際潮流及創新科技衝擊下之台灣個資法〉，數位時代下之隱私權（四），台灣律師學院系列課程，2019 年 5 月 9 日。
  55. 邱智偉(2019)。東海大學法律研究所。
  56. 洪財隆(2019)。行為經濟學與競爭法適用之初探。公平交易通訊，85，1-7。
  57. 胡博硯,張祐齊(2016)。論消費者保護法的行政監督與基本權保障。國會月刊，44(1)，47-72。
  58. 張媛筑(2018)。競爭法上使用者數據之應有定位與可能造成之衝擊。公平交易季刊，26(4)，125-164。
  59. 陳志民(2020)。大數據與市場力濫用行為初探。垂直限制競爭與資訊時代下之競爭議題，台北:
  60. 程法彰(2020)。我國資通訊產業的個資去識別化運用爭議。萬國法律，230，73-81。
  61. 程法彰(2020)。數位經濟發展下網際網路服務提供者之責任。台灣法學雜誌，402，23-41。
  62. 程法彰(2017)。數位經濟時代下個人資料保護的衝突與歐盟個資保護規則顯示的意義。月旦法學雜誌，264，229-244。
  63. 程法彰,葉志良(2020)。網路中立性的再詮釋：美國在地爭議及其對我國產業管制規範的啟示。施茂林教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集（上），台北:
  64. 楊宏暉(2022)。從德國 Facebook 案談競爭與隱私之交會。歐美近年競爭法重要案例研析學術研討會
  65. 廖義男(1996)。消費者保護法與公平交易法關於廣告與標示範圍之競合。律師通訊，199，16-36。
  66. 劉定基(2017)。大數據與物聯網時代的個人資料自主權。憲政時代，42(3)，265-308。
  67. 劉定基(2009)。欺罔與不公平資訊行為之規範－以美國聯邦交易委員會的管制案例為中心。公平交易季刊，17(4)，57-91。
  68. 劉靜怡(2019)。淺談 GDPR 的國際衝擊及其可能因應之道。月旦法學雜誌，286，5-31。
print cancel