| 摘要: | 現今網路科技發展日益蓬勃，於數位科技輔助之下，任何網路上資訊均具備便於蒐集、複製、散布及儲存等之特性，因此造成個人難以掌控其自身資料，進而使個人之人格權易於遭受侵害。又被遺忘權之概念，於歐盟2014年西班牙Google v. AEPD案判決後逐漸受到重視，進而影響歐盟對於「一般資料保護規章」草案第17條「被遺忘權」的建構。
本文研究重心為探討搜尋引擎功能日益強大下，對於個人之人格權所帶來之挑戰，以及建立被遺忘權時所可能面臨之實務面、操作面問題。有鑑於我國現行個人資料保護法之整體架機構與特定條文，受到歐盟1995年個人資料保護指令之影響，故本文嘗試從現行個人資料保護法類似條文中，探討可否推論出被遺忘權。
惟我國現行個人資料保護法中雖具有資料刪除權規定，但刪除權於解釋上僅限於適用在該資料有超越原蒐集個人資料之特定目的必要範圍或期限之情形，因此恐無法做為被遺忘權之請求權基礎。其次，民法第18條訂有人格權保障相關規定，然資料主體欲主張被遺忘權尚須通過「不法性」要件，此要件受限於須經法院為個案利益衡量，具有相當程度之不確定性，不適合做為被遺忘權一般規定。再者，我國憲法第22條為概括基本權規定，對於網路世代所新興之被遺忘權，循釋字第603號解釋意旨，應得將此權利建構為憲法上之概括基本權，惟個人要求刪除之內容，可能涉及公共利益，若一律無條件地賦予個人得主張被遺忘權，則人民關於「知的權利」將被嚴重侵蝕，媒體的報導範圍亦將大幅減低。因此，個人得主張「被遺忘權」之時點，勢必須通過綜合考量，權衡各種衝突與利益，並建立一套完善之標準後始得為之。
接著藉由法律經濟分析，本文肯定「被遺忘權」具有實踐公平正義之價值，然而從成本面向觀察，理性之立法者在建構被遺忘權時，恐面臨社會成本與交易成本不符合經濟效用之困境，且在實際執行時礙於數位科技具有便於蒐集、複製、散布與儲存資料之特性，縱使資料主體於司法程序上順利取得刪除某部分個人資料之權利，尚難達到斬草除根之目的。為平衡個人之人格保障，本文以為較為可行之方式，應係藉由成本效用分析中之「潛在帕雷托改善」原則，透過要求資料主體對於刪除義務人為成本之補償，或是由雙方當事人共同分擔成本，甚至由資料主體負擔成本，始可能解決成本分配不均此難題。
綜上所述，雖然至今被遺忘權僅在歐洲被明確提出，但其重要性隨著網際網路之無國界性，遲早將擴及歐洲以外之地區。因此，為使我國法規範能與國際接軌，本文期許立法者能多參閱國外相關規範，加緊腳步修法或立法，以補足我國對於個人資料安全保護之不周，以提供更健全之人格權保障。
With the flourishing technologies of the internet, information on line are convenient to be collected, copied, distributed and saved. Men thus have difficulty controlling their own data, and their personality rights are hence under the risk of being infringed. The concept of the right to be forgotten has gradually been valued since 2004 Google v AEPD case in Europe. And the Draft Article 17 the Right to be Forgotten of General Data Protection Regulation has therefore been constructed.
This work focuses on the challenges to personality rights under the powerful features of search engines and the issues of execution one may face constructing the right to be forgotten. Given that the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC has substantial impact on our current Personal Protection Act, this work explores whether it is possible to interpret the right to be forgotten with similar articles.
Nevertheless, the application of the current right to delete is limited to the case as the collection of personal data exceeds the necessary range and term of the purpose to collect. It may not be a supporting legal basis for such right. While the Article 18 of the Civil Code provides certain protection of personality rights; it does not serve as a legal basis. One needs to fulfill the unlawfulness criterion, which is under the discretion of the curt on ad hoc basis, to claim for personality right under the article. Uncertain as such, it is not appropriate to view the article as a general clause for the right to be forgotten. Furthermore, despite that Article 22 of the Constitution has been confirmed as a general clause of basic right and the right to be forgotten may be considered as one. However, the content of the claim may involve public interest. Without establishing a comprehensive standard after balancing each factors, unconditional affirmation of such right to be forgotten could narrow the right to intelligence.
The work acknowledges the right to be forgotten has the value of practicing justice; however, from the perspective of cost, rational legislators may face the challenge the social and transaction may not reach the economic utility when constructing the right to be forgotten. And even with such right, it may be difficult to practice for the data is easy to be collected, copied, distributed and saved. In order to balance personality right, the work considers that the Pareto Optimal rule of the Cost-Benefit Analysis is a more practical way. By asking compensation from the claimant of the right to the one owed to delete, or to share the cost by both, or even by the claimant, the uneven distribution of cost may be solved.
To sum, although the right is only affirmed explicitly in Europe, but the need of it has already expanded outside of the Europe with the boundary-less feature of the internet. The work urges our legislators to make reference to relevant protection of other legal regimes and supplement our protection of personal data so to provide a more comprehensive protection of personality right. |
