資料利他主義之初探－以歐盟與我國法制為中心

Abstract

近年來，資料治理政策逐漸從重視資料隱私，發展至關注資料共享、資料創新利用等制度化運作。歐盟自2020年起推動《資料治理法》，正式引入資料利他主義制度，藉由非營利組織協助處理與利用資料，供普遍利益用途使用，建立具有信任基礎的資料流通模式。我國於2023年起，規劃「數據公益」相關政策，提出「數據公益運作指引」（以下簡稱指引）並啟動運動數據公益運作平臺，展現推廣資料利他制度的意圖；行政院數位發展部於2025年另公告《促進資料創新利用發展條例》草案（以下簡稱草案），正式於法律層級提出資料利他制度，可視為我國資料利他主義發展之一大進程。惟不論指引或草案，其對於資料利他制度之規劃仍未臻完善，故本文將以歐盟《資料治理法》與我國資料利他規範進行比較分析，以探尋我國資料利他制度未來可進一步發展之方向。 本研究採文獻分析法與個案研究法，結合多方利害關係人治理模式與資料利他主義相關實踐原則作為分析架構。比較分析內容涵蓋三大層面：一、比較歐盟與我國資料利他制度之法制設計與治理模式；二、檢視資料利他原則於制度層面的落實情形；三、透過歐盟與我國資料利他之實踐個案，分析實務上兩國制度設計之異同與挑戰。 研究結果發現，歐盟雖建構完整法制架構，但因參與門檻高、認證機制成本大，實際受官方認證者極少，突顯法制化與實務運作之落差。相較之下，我國制度雖具開放彈性，但整體設計仍偏重原則宣示，缺乏執行機制、治理程序與參與者權責劃分，難以支撐長期制度運作。本研究建議在法制層面應強化法律授權條文、建置多元參與治理架構，並於子法層級完善利他資料申請使用之程序與細節事項；實務層面應提供非營利組織推動資料利他制度之誘因與支持工具，以健全制度運作與增進社會信任。

Data governance has increasingly emphasized data sharing and innovative use alongside privacy concerns. In 2020, the EU introduced the concept of data altruism in its Data Governance Act, enabling non-profit organizations to manage data for public interest purposes. Taiwan followed with the 2023 Guidelines for Data Altruism Operations and the 2025 draft Act on the Promotion of Data Innovation and Utilization. While these developments signal policy intent, the regulatory framework remains incomplete. This study compares the EU and Taiwan’s data altruism systems to explore future directions for Taiwan’s legal and institutional design. This research adopts document analysis and case study methodologies, using the multi-stakeholder governance model and key principles of data altruism as the analytical framework. The comparative analysis focuses on three dimensions: (1) a comparison of the legal design and governance mechanisms of data altruism in the EU and Taiwan; (2) an examination of how the principles of data altruism are implemented in each jurisdiction; and (3) an analysis of the similarities, differences, and challenges in practical implementation through selected case studies from both the EU and Taiwan. The study finds that while the EU has established a comprehensive legal framework, its high entry barriers and costly certification have led to very few officially recognized organizations, revealing a gap between legal design and practical implementation. In contrast, Taiwan’s system offers flexibility but lacks concrete mechanisms, governance procedures, and clear role definitions, limiting long-term effectiveness. This study recommends strengthening legal mandates, building a multi-stakeholder governance structure, and detailing operational procedures in subordinate regulations. Practical support and incentives should also be provided to nonprofit organizations to enhance implementation and public trust.