日本之資訊自決權-從住民基本登錄網絡制度到行政程序中識別特定個人之編號利用法

Abstract

隨著科技發展，政府不斷透過科技之應用，加強對人民個人資訊之蒐集、處理與利用。此種行為常使人民個人資訊陷入不法濫用之高度風險，並強力限制人民對自己資訊之自主決定權。在此種政府之措施下，政府握有對人民加以不當管理、監控之技術，可能危及個人自治，進而危及民主社會之根基。 日本法中除以民法第709 條侵權行為損害賠償請求權作為對資訊自決權之保護基礎外，更以憲法第13 條對人民之個人資訊自決加以保護。在日本，過去即已透過住民基本登錄制度之住民編號對全體人民實施管理，最高法院認其並無違憲。在科技的發展下，現今政府更對全體人民配賦共通於全國政府機關及大量民間機構之個人編號，並建置一網絡系統供政府機關自行流通此等人民之個人資訊。政府考量並改善了過去法院所指摘之不足，期待以一具備有個人資訊保護評價制度、獨立監督機關、較高刑責之制度達成對個人資訊的完整保護。然編號制度對個人資訊所進行流通、整合比對、應用卻遠較住基網絡制度深廣。進而編號法已於未具備更重要立法目的的前提下，將人民之個人資訊暴露於前所未有風險之下。人民的個人資訊受政府不法蒐集、處理、利用，進而實施一元化管理的可能。此種體制即有不符日本憲法第13 條對尊重個人、人格自治保障之虞。 回頭反思我國法，雖無建置一供全國政府機關自行流通全體人民個人資訊之網絡系統，然我國所採用之國民身分證統一編號，適用事務範圍卻遠較日本法之個人編號為廣，對於國民身分證亦有強制採取整合不同行政事務晶片之計畫。在編號下所繫資訊極為龐大的同時，我國對於政府機關間蒐集、處理、利用人民個人資訊之行為仍欠缺相關法律規範。若從日本法的經驗觀察我國現狀，我國之人民個人資訊暴露於遭不法濫用之高度風險，且有遭政府濫用而受政府不當管理、監視之虞。當務之急應為訂立對政府機關相關行為的詳細法規範、使政府機關對人民個人資訊之蒐集、處理、利用過程透明化，除考慮設置獨立監督機關、隱私影響評價制度外，並建立可供人民檢視自己資訊流動與使用情形之機制。 在採行民主體制，且憲法對人民之人格自治加以保護之國家中，政府本即不應出於抽象之行政效率等目的便對全體人民配賦一通用於全國政府機關甚至民間機構之編號。若為重大之目的而須配賦此種編號，亦應限縮編號之適用事務範圍，且不應設置一供全國政府機關得自行流通人民個人資訊之網絡系統，以降低政府機關之道德風險。同時尚應設置具相當獨立性之個人資訊保護專責機構，以求對政府蒐集、處理、利用人民個人資訊進行有效之監督。最後，無論體制如何設計，皆應考量政府對人民之不當管理與監視。在追求便利、社會福利、政府服務的同時，仍不能對國家力量掉以輕心，而應永遠監督政府對人民的監視，考量國家可能帶來的侵害，在利害間進行衡量與折衝。配合人民權利意識的提升，在體制中儘量給予人民選擇的自由。

Due to advanced technology, the government has been empowered to collecting, processing and using variety of personal information about individuals. It exposes personal information to high risk of being used illegally and restraint on people’s control on self-information. By controlling personal information, the government is capable of managing and monitoring people improperly. At last, it might cause the collapse of the democracy. . In Japanese Law, the right to informational self-determination is protected not only by Article 709, Civil Law, but also by Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan. However, the Residential Basic Book Network System allocated Resident Registration Numbers to every individual and built a network system for managing people. Although it is criticized for eroding the right to informational self-determination, it is approved constitutional by the Supreme Court of Japan. Furthermore, the government enacted the Act on the Use of Numbers to Identify a Specific Individual in the Administrative Procedure, allocated Personal Numbers to every individual, and allowed all government agency and partial private organization to use the number for exchange people’s personal information by a new network system. Although the Government considered and improved the shortcomings criticized by the Supreme Court’s judgment in the past, expect to reach the thoroughly protection of right to informational self-determination by a system with privacy impact assessment, independent oversight agency and higher punishment, the “Act of Numbers” still makes personal information being much more exchanged, matched and used. Without an important legislative purpose, the “Act of Numbers” exposes people’s personal information to unprecedented risks and enables the Government to implement singular control on people. As the result, the “Act of Numbers” doesn’t meet the protection of respect to individual and personal autonomy which praised by Article 13 of Constitution of Japan. In the mean time in Taiwan, although there is not a network system for all government agency to exchange personal information, the use of National ID Card Number is being used much more extensively than Japan’s personal number. Furthermore, it is still planed by the Government to force each citizen to hold national ID card with IC chip built-in, which integrated different administrative affairs. While a large numbers of personal information is recorded on the National ID Card Number, Taiwan still lack of the relevant legal norms on the exchanging of personal information among government agency. Drawing on legal experiences of Japanese law, the priority in Taiwan should be enacting detailed legal norms to rule the relevant government agencies conduct, enhance the transparency of how government agency collect, process and use personal information. To go a step further, I suggest it is necessary to set up independent supervisory authority, privacy impact assessments and a system for the citizen to inspect the flow and use of self-information. . In a democratic country, the government should not allocate numbers to the citizen, nor build a network system for the government agency to manage people without particular and major purpose. If the number is allocated, the affair using the number should be limited strictly and clearly. Furthermore, there should be independent supervisory authority, privacy impact assessments and a system for the citizen to inspect the flow and use of self-information. Finally, no matter how the system designed, the improper management and monitoring by the Government should always be considered while the pursuit of convenience, social welfare, and government services.