云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商的數(shù)據(jù)儲(chǔ)存侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間:2018-06-08 06:18
本文選題:云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商 + 個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)��; 參考:《寧波大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文
【摘要】:云存儲(chǔ)是一種新的信息存儲(chǔ)模式,是傳統(tǒng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)存儲(chǔ)的綜合體和升級(jí)版。實(shí)踐中,云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)事件時(shí)有發(fā)生。但云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商的侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定卻于法無據(jù)。雖然云服務(wù)商侵權(quán)可借鑒傳統(tǒng)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,但傳統(tǒng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定也處于非常模糊的狀態(tài)。例如,對(duì)傳統(tǒng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商“注意義務(wù)”的探討在學(xué)術(shù)界和實(shí)踐中就有很多不同的做法。因此,有必要對(duì)特殊法律地位下的云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任進(jìn)行認(rèn)定,以保障云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)使用者的信息權(quán)利。本文第一部分是對(duì)云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商與一般的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商,以及云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商與傳統(tǒng)的網(wǎng)盤服務(wù)商進(jìn)行區(qū)分和界定。目的在于論證本文的論題存在的合理性。云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商特有的運(yùn)行機(jī)制使它和傳統(tǒng)的網(wǎng)盤和網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商有所區(qū)別。由于云存儲(chǔ)中個(gè)人信息的主體并沒有實(shí)際上控制信息,因此個(gè)人信息遭受侵權(quán)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)大大提升。本文第二部分是對(duì)云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定。具體而言包括云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)歸責(zé)原則的選擇適用以及損害事實(shí)的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。損害事實(shí)包括對(duì)個(gè)人信息本身的一種損害,主要體現(xiàn)為一種財(cái)產(chǎn)利益的損害。另一種是對(duì)個(gè)人信息所有權(quán)人的損害,主要體現(xiàn)為一種人格利益的損害。對(duì)因果關(guān)系進(jìn)行選擇適用,一個(gè)是相當(dāng)因果關(guān)系,另一個(gè)是助成因果關(guān)系,但這兩種因果關(guān)系并不是矛盾的,而是存在不同的侵權(quán)狀態(tài)之中。另外,對(duì)云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任必須設(shè)定免責(zé)情形,但為了平衡各方利益必須對(duì)免責(zé)的情形再進(jìn)行限制。本文第三部分主要論證云存儲(chǔ)服務(wù)商侵權(quán)責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式中的損害賠償方式。賠償數(shù)額的計(jì)算標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該適用全額賠償?shù)脑瓌t,而且還應(yīng)確立一個(gè)普遍適用的賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但同時(shí)需要綜合考量多方面因素。精神損害賠償應(yīng)當(dāng)適用,才可彌補(bǔ)信息主體遭受的損害。要確定精神損害賠償?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)需要綜合考量信息主體個(gè)人受損害的情況和侵權(quán)的具體的客體類型。為了更能平衡各方利益,需要適用懲罰性賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。同時(shí),為了能更好的得到法律救濟(jì),必須規(guī)定損害不需要一個(gè)非常精確的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)即可要求懲罰性賠償。
[Abstract]:Cloud storage is a new information storage mode, which is a complex and upgrade version of traditional network storage. In practice, cloud storage service providers infringement incidents occur from time to time. However, the confirmation of tort liability of cloud storage service provider has no basis in law. Although cloud service providers can learn from the traditional network service provider tort liability to identify, but the traditional network service provider tort liability is also in a very vague state. For example, there are many different approaches to traditional network service providers'duty of care in academia and practice. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the tort liability of cloud storage service providers under special legal status in order to protect the information rights of cloud storage service users. The first part of this paper is to distinguish and define cloud storage service provider and general network service provider, as well as cloud storage service provider and traditional network disk service provider. The purpose is to prove the rationality of the existence of this thesis. Cloud storage service provider's unique operation mechanism makes it different from the traditional network disk and network service provider. Because the subject of personal information in cloud storage does not actually control the information, the risk of infringement of personal information is greatly increased. The second part of this paper is the confirmation of tort liability of cloud storage service provider. Specifically, it includes the choice and application of tort imputation principle of cloud storage service provider and the criterion of confirming damage fact. The fact of damage includes a kind of damage to personal information itself, mainly reflected in the damage of property interests. The other is the damage to the owner of personal information, mainly reflected in the damage of personal interests. The choice of causality is applicable, one is equivalent causality, the other is auxiliary causality, but these two kinds of causality are not contradictory, but exist in different tort states. In addition, the tort liability of cloud storage service provider must be exempted from liability, but in order to balance the interests of all parties, the exemption must be restricted. The third part of this article mainly demonstrates the cloud storage service provider tort liability in the way of compensation for damages. The principle of full compensation should be applied to the calculation standard of compensation amount, and a universal standard of compensation should be established, but at the same time, many factors should be considered synthetically. Compensation for moral damage should be applied in order to make up for the damage suffered by the information subject. In order to determine the standard of compensation for moral damage, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the situation of individual damage to information subject and the specific object type of infringement. In order to balance the interests of all parties, punitive damages should be applied. At the same time, in order to get a better legal remedy, it is necessary to stipulate that the damage does not require a very precise standard to claim punitive damages.
【學(xué)位授予單位】:寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】:碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】:2015
【分類號(hào)】:D923
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 廉思思;;云環(huán)境下侵犯商業(yè)秘密的民事責(zé)任[J];科技與法律;2013年06期
,本文編號(hào):1994900
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/1994900.html
最近更新
教材專著